IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34361 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.1163/2002 of II ADDL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- G.SREEDEVI, W/O. K.N.MONY VADAVOOR VEEDU, V.R.A.22, VADAVOOR LANE, ANAYARA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL MR.N.P.PRAJEESH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. VIJAYAKUMARI, W/O. FRANKLIN VADAVOOR VEEDU, V.R.A. 21 VADAVOOR LANE ANAYARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. FRANKLIN, VADAVOOR VEEDU, V.R.A. 21 VADAVOOR LANE ANAYARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. VASANTHI, VADAVOOR VEEDU, V.R.A. 21 VADAVOOR LANE ANAYARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SECRETARY, K.S.E.B VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SECTION, K.S.E.B PETTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R4 & 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.34361 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1163 of 2002 on the file of the 2nd Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.P1 is the copy of the plaint. Relief claimed in the suit is one for mandatory injunction to direct the defendant to remove some iron pipes fixed on the outer side of the boundary wall of the plaint property. Case of the plaintiff is that the above boundary wall belongs exclusively to her and it was constructed at her expenses. Trial of the case is in progress. After closing of the evidence plaintiff produced some bills and moved for getting them admitted in evidence to show that the materials for the construction of the boundary wall were purchased under those bills. The court below declined the request of the plaintiff for admission of the bills in evidence, vide Ext.P3 order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary, and it is dispensed with. W.P.(C).No.34361 of 2009 - O 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case stands posted for hearing today. It is seen the suit was instituted as early as in 2002. Evidently, the above circumstances would indicate some latches and culpable negligence on the part of the plaintiff in prosecuting the suit claim. Still, I find that an opportunity has to be extended to the petitioner to establish the suit claim subject to compensating the injury likely to be caused to the defendant in the prolongation of the trial. Court below is directed to extend an opportunity to the plaintiff to lead further evidence, but, limited to the bills produced by her, subject to payment of Rs.500/- as cost to the defendant. Ext.P3 shall stand set aside subject to the direction given above. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Hand over a copy of the judgment to the counsel for the petitioner and send a copy to the court concerned forthwith. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-