IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 4474 of 2006(G) ------------------------- OS.308/2001 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER: ------------ T.M. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. KELAPPAN, THAZHE MALAYIMMAL HOUSE, P.O. KATAL UR, PIN-673 531, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY SRI.A.PARVATHI MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. C.V. ROHINI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, W/O. KARUNAKARAN, KUTTIVAYAL HOUSE, NEAR NEW COLLECTORATE BUNGLOW, KACHERI AMSOM, DESOM, WEST HILL, CALICUT-5. 2. M.K. SURESH BABU, S/O. KARUNAKARAN, AGED 38 YEARS, KUTTIVAYAL HOUSE, NEAR NEW COLLECTORATE BUNGLOW, KACHERI AMSOM, DESOM, WEST HILL, CALICUT-5. 3. M.K. SANTHOSH, S/O. KARUNAKARAN, AGED 36 YEARS, KUTTIVAYAL HOUSE, NEAR NEW COLLECTORATE BUNGLOW, KACHERI AMSOM, DESOM, WEST HILL, CALICUT-5. 4. M.K. SUKESH BABU, S/O. KARUNAKARAN, AGED 34 YEARS, KUTTIVAYAL HOUSE, NEAR NEW COLLECTORATE BUNGLOW, KACHERI AMSOM, DESOM, WEST HILL, CALICUT-5. 5. M.K. SOUWBAGYAVATHY, D/O. KARUNAKARAN, AGED 24 YEARS, KUTTIVAYAL HOUSE, NEAR NEW COLLECTORATE BUNGLOW, KACHERI AMSOM, DESOM, WEST HILL, CALICUT-5. 6. M.K.PRAJITHA, D/O. KARUNAKARAN, AGED 24 YEARS, NEAR NEW COLLECTORATE BUNGLOW, KACHERI AMSOM, DESOM, WEST HILL, CALICUT-5. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) No. 4474/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 28/09/97. P2 : COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 03/12/2001. P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 5078/05 IN OS 308/01 DATED 12/01/06. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE. jg PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 4474 of 2006 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T Even though Smt. Parvathy Menon A., learned counsel for the petitioner has addressed me very strenuously and persuasively, I am unable to accept the argument that it is possible to construe Annexure A1 document as a bond also. The contours of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 are well defined. It cannot be said that Ext.P3 order is vitiated to the extent of being branded as a perverse order or a totally unreasonable one. It is seen that the learned Sub Judge has gone through Annexure A1 and has answered the question as to whether the document is a bond or an agreement with reference to the statutory definitions and keeping in mind the judicial precedents interpreting bonds, I dismiss the writ petition. 2. At the same time, I feel that before proceeding further in the matter, the learned Sub Judge should explore the possibilities of rapprochement on the issues between the parties by summoning the parties and if the endeavour of the learned Subordinate Judge fails, the suit should be referred to any Lok Adalath which is being conducted under the aegies of the Kozhikkode District Legal WP(C) No. 4474/2006 -2- Services Authority. Even as I decline relief it is clarified that nothing stated in the judgment will stand in the way of the petitioner’s applying for amendment of the plaint and the learned Subordinate Judge passing appropriate orders on the same. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) jg