IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH SATURDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP(C).No. 3721 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------- [OS.NO.134/2006 OF SUB COURT, MANJERI] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- P.K. ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O. RAYINKUTTY, "PEACE", EDAVANNA AMSOM, PATHAPIRIYAM DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN, SMT.GEETHA P.MENON, SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SAIFUNISA NARIPATTA, D/O. KUNHALANKUTTY MASTER, HENNAN COTTAGE, HOUSING, P.O.MUNDUPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. PIN-676 509. 2. K. HAMZA, S/O. MOHAMMEDKUTTY, ADVOCATE, AZHUVALAPPIL HOUSE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 509. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.(C).NO.3721/2011-O: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1: DATED 20-03-2010, TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO.2708 OF 2009 IN O.S. NO. 134 OF 2006, SUB COURT, MANJERI. EXT.P2: DATED 20-3-2010 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.S. NO.134 OF 2006, SUB COURT, MANJERI. EXT.P3: DATED 26-5-2010, TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C). NO.12539 OF 2010-O. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.3721 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT Plaintiff in O.S.No.134 of 2006 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Manjeri is the petitioner before me, aggrieved by the deletion of additional issues framed in the suit. 2. The suit is for a decree for prohibitory injunction to restrain respondents 1 to 6 jointly or severally defaming petitioner. Case is that petitioner was told by the 5th respondent that her son, Mohammed is born to the 6th respondent and that 5th respondent is disturbing petitioner at the instance of the 6th respondent. There was a request for conducting DNA test which was rejected and this Court confirmed that order. Later, additional issues framed in connection with paternity of Mohammed were deleted by the learned Sub Judge. That order is under challenge. 3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner. I have also gone through the issues originally framed by the learned Sub Judge which includes whether petitioner is entitled to get any compensation as sought for. In deciding that question all the other relevant allegations made in the plaint would be considered by the learned Sub Judge. I am not inclined to think that at this stage and having regard to issue No.1 already framed, it is necessary to retain the additional issues. Learned Sub Judge has exercised discretion to delete the OP(C)No.3721/2011 2 additional issues as being not necessary consequent to the refusal to conduct DNA test. If at all petitioner is aggrieved it is open to him to take up the matter in the appeal that may be preferred from the judgment and decree if such a course is provided under law. With the above observation this Original Petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks