IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 W.P(C).No. 31453 of 2008(T) ------------------------------------ OS.345/2008 OF PRL.S.C.,THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER : ---------------------- PRESTIGE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN SRI.ABDUL JABBAR.M., S/O.K.K.KUNHIAMMED HAJI, AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT.MUNEERA MANZIL, MILL ROAD, PAYANGADI, KANNUR-670 302. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.KAUSER EDAPAGATH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. P.A. HAMZA, S/O. LATE ABDULLA HAJI, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT CRESCENT HOUSE, EAST NADAKKAVU, KATACHERI VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. FAREEDA HAMZA, W/O. HAMZA, HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING AT CRESCENT HOUSE, EAST NADAKKAVU, KATACHERI VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. M.K. ANILKUMAR, ADVOCATE, THALASSERY, KANNUR. ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS - R1 & R2 SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN - R1 SRI.CIBI THOMAS - R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).No. 31453/2008(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.345/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB JUDGE (PRL.), THALASSERY. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM REPORT SUBMITTED BY ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER BEFORE THE SUB COURT, THALASSERY. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED IN I.A. NO.3674 OF 2008 IN O.S. NO.345/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB JUDGE(PRL.), THALASSERY DATED 17/10/2008. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER BEFORE THE SUB JUDGE, THALASSERY DATED 22/10/2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE scm THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------ W.P(c) No. 31453 of 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Third respondent in this writ petition is deleted from party array as requested by the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 appeared through counsel. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S. No.345 of 2008 of the Sub Court, Thalassery. On the request of respondents 1 and 2, Advocate Commissioner was appointed in that case to report on matters requested in the application, including taking inventory of movables, immovable properties and accounts etc. Advocate Commissioner inspected the premises on 10/10/2008 and 11/10/2008 and thereafter, requested that police assistance be given to him for further inspection. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, though petitioner had appeared in that case, learned sub judge ordered police assistance as per order in I.A No.3674 of 2008 without even giving notice of the application to the petitioner. The Advocate Commissioner gave memo to the petitioner intimating further W.P(c) No. 31453/ 2008 2 inspection on 28/10/2008. 4. As per order dated 24/10/2008, this court after hearing the learned counsel for petitioner had directed that the order granting police assistance to the Advocate Commissioner will stand suspended till 28/10/2008. Counsel for petitioner had then undertaken that the petitioner will cooperate with the Advocate Commissioner and produce whatever records are available for inspection of the Advocate Commissioner and also comply with all other directions of the Advocate Commissioner. Counsel for petitioner states that whatever records available were produced for the inspection of the advocate commissioner. His grievance is that the order giving police assistance was without notice to the petitioner. Counsel pointed out that though the second defendant (who is not a party in this proceeding) had filed applications for review of the order appointing Advocate Commissioner and to recall the order for police assistance, learned Sub Judge closed the application seeking recall of the order for police assistance. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for respondents 1 W.P(c) No. 31453/ 2008 3 and 2 that the inspection of the Advocate commissioner is not completed. It is contended that the order of the learned Sub Judge granting police assistance is still in force and what is closed is an application filed by the second defendant in the suit to recall that order. 6. In the facts and circumstances and on hearing the counsel on both sides, I am of the view that it is not necessary to keep this writ petition pending since the application to review the order appointing Advocate Commissioner is pending consideration before the learned Sub Judge. So far as the complaint of the petitioner that police assistance was ordered without notice to him is concerned, it will be open to any of the parties aggrieved in that regard to seek review of the order granting police assistance, if they are otherwise entitled to that course, and if any such request is made, learned Sub Judge will consider that request on its merit. 7. It is made clear that the observations contained in the interim order passed by this court on 24/10/2008 will be confined to the disposal of the request for interim relief in this petition. Learned Sub Judge shall dispose of the application pending or moved before W.P(c) No. 31453/ 2008 4 him untrammeled by any of the observations contained in the interim order or in this judgment. It will be open to the petitioner to raise whatever contentions he has raised in this writ petition before the learned Sub Judge if the petitioner is otherwise entitle to that course. With the above observations, the writ petition is closed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE scm