IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34583 of 2008(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SUJITH, S/O. GOPINATHAN, CHARUVILAVEEDU, THETTIKULAM, MOONGODE, OTTOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKIL TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. JIJI, D/O. SASIDHARAN, RAJA BHAVAN, VENKODE, PALAYAMKUNNU, AYIROOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKIL TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ARJUN, MINOR, S/O. SUJITH, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER JIJI, -DO- THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.34583 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the first respondent in Ext.P3, O.P.No.953/2006 before the Family Court, Nedumangad, filed by the respondents herein. The said case is posted for trial before that court on 27.11.2008. The respondents have earlier filed Ext.P1 Original Petition, seeking the very same reliefs sought in Ext.P3. Along with that, they have moved Ext.P2 application for interim relief also. Since no ex-parte interim relief was granted and only notice was ordered on Ext.P2, the petitioner submits, the respondents filed Ext.P3 fresh Original Petition and along with that Ext.P4 application for interim relief was also moved. The Family Court granted interim order in Ext.P4, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P5. Thereafter, Ext.P1 Original Petition was withdrawn, it is submitted. The petitioner has approached this Court filing O.P.No.28585/2006, challenging Ext.P5 order, in which he pointed out the W.P.(C) No.34583/2008 2 misconduct from the part of the respondents herein. This Court took note of that contention and directed the petitioner to place these facts before the court below. The petitioner submits, he has already placed these facts before the Family court. But, Ext.P5 interim order was not vacated. Now, the said case is posted for trial. The petitioner wanted to prove the filing of Exts.P1 and P2. He submitted an application for the certified copies of those documents. But, the said application was rejected for the reason that the files relating to the said two exhibits were sent to this Court and they were not received back. In the above background, the petitioner preferred Ext.P7 application to club Exts.P1 and P2 also along with Ext.P3 Original Petition. Thereafter, this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. “i) issue a writ of certiorari directing the Family Court, Nedumangad to call for the records in Exts.P1 and P2 peruse the same and take appropriate action if it is found that the application for withdrawal of Exts.P1 and P2 has been filed after the issuance of Ext.P5 order and also not to proceed with Exts.P3 and P4 before the records in Ext.P1 and P2 are before it and the copy of the records prayed for in Ext.P7 are made available to the petitioner. W.P.(C) No.34583/2008 3 ii) to direct the Family Court, Nedumangad not to proceed with Exts.P3 and P4 before calling for the records in Ext.P1 and P2 and adjudicating the issue of maintainability of Exts.P3 and P4. iii) to direct the Family Court, Nedumangad to ascertain whether the 1st respondent has played fraud on the court by filing Exts.P3 and P4 during the existence of Ext.P1 and P2 and then filing an application for withdrawal after obtaining Ext.P5 order. iv) to declare that the Family Court, Nedumangad is legally bound to see that the records in Exts.P1 and P2 are perused before proceeding with Exts.P3 and P4.” 2. We heard the learned counsel, Mr.Swathi Kumar, for the petitioner. He reiterated the contentions raised in this writ petition before us. But, we feel that the trial of Ext.P3 cannot be stopped at this stage. If the petitioner is not given a chance to prove the filing of Exts.P1 and P2 at the time of trial, and if the final judgment in Ext.P3 goes against him, while challenging that order, he can raise the said ground also. During the trial of a case, at intermediate stages, the parties may feel aggrieved by one or more actions of the trial court. But, every time, they cannot be permitted to make a frog leap to this Court and block W.P.(C) No.34583/2008 4 the trial of the suit. If, ultimately they are aggrieved by the final order or judgment, they can raise their grievances while challenging that final order or judgment. In view of the said position, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps