IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7203 of 2009(O) OS.452/2002 OF I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM PETITIONER: 3RD DEFENDANT: --------------- M.C.SAJUMON, 43/1340, ABHILASH BUILDING, ST.BENEDICT ROAD, ERNAKULAM, NOW RESIDING AT XLI/3227 RUKYA APARTMENTS, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE SRI.JOHN VIPIN SMT.S.A.SHERLY SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI SMT.SAJITHA GEORGE RESPONDENTS: PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS 1, 2 & 4 --------------- 1. M/S.CANARA BANK, A BODY CORPORATION AND CONSTITUTED UNDER BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING) ACT 1970 HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT BANGALORE & A BRANCH AT BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. M/S.GARTS INDIA TEX.(P)LTD., A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 43/1340 D, ABHILASH BUILDINGS ST.BENEDICT ROAD,KOCHI-18, REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR BABY SRAMBICKAL, SRAMBICKAL HOUSE, ELANKUNNAPPUZHA, PIN-682 503. 3. DR.VARGHESE MUNDACKAL, S/O.JOSEPH, MUNDACKAL HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM. 4. BABY SRAMBICKAL, SRAMBICKAL HOUSE, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA, PIN-682 503. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 7203 OF 2009 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th March, 2009 JUDGMENT The third defendant in O.S.No.452 of 2002, on the file of the court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Ernakulam, is the petitioner in this Writ Petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and the second defendant was examined as DW1, the counsel who appeared for the third defendant was not allowed by the Court to cross examine the witnesses. It is submitted that Advocate Shaijan C.George is appearing for the third defendant and at the time when PW1 and DW1 were examined, Advocate Sri.John Vipin, junior of Advocate Shaijan C.George was present in Court. Advocate John Vipin was not allowed to cross examine PW1 and DW1. 2. The only prayer made by the petitioner is that he may be permitted to cross examine PW1 and DW1. Sri.Gopinath Menon, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent Canara Bank, did not oppose the prayer. The third respondent, Dr.Varghese Mundackal, who appeared in person, submitted that he has no objection in allowing PW1 and DW1 to be cross examined. His only anxiety is that under the guise of cross examining these witnesses, the third defendant should not be allowed to protract the case. W.P.(C) NO.7203 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the court below was justified in not permitting Advocate John Vipin to cross examine PW1 and DW1. The court below shall fix a date for cross examination of PW1 and DW1. On that day, either Shaijan C.George or his junior Advocate John Vipin would be entitled to cross examine PW1 and DW1. It is agreed that the plaintiff Canara Bank or the third defendant M.C.Sajumon will not apply for adjournment of the case and will not seek further time to cross examine these witnesses. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/