IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1590 of 2008(L) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- KURIAKOSE @ KURIACHAN PEEECHAKKARA HOUSE ADIMALI KARA, MANNAMKANDOM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- ELDHO @ PADAYATTE HELDO, S/O. ABRAHAM, ADVOCATE, ADIMALI RESIDING AT PADAYATTIL HOUSE, ADIMALI, MANNAMKANDOM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 1590 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed challenging the order in I.A.62/07 in O.S.42/04. There is a suit as well as a counter claim. There is endorsement on the proceedings paper that replication filed on 8.7.03. But it is seen that no issues are raised on the basis of counter claim. The suit was transferred from Devikulam to Idukki. It is submitted that the party was under the impression that the replication is also there in the file and only when it reached the trial stage it was understood that the said replication stated to have been filed on 8.7.03 was not available with the records which is transmitted from Devikulam to Idukki and that a communication was sent to Devikulam. It was replied that no such papers are seen there. So, whatever it may be, there was an impression on the part of the Court as well the parties that replication has been filed on 8.7.03. On account W.P.C 1590 OF 2008 -:2:- of the mistake of either of the counsel or by the Court staff what has happened now is that the replication is not now in the case bundle. Therefore it is submitted that unless replication is permitted to be received or filed it will cause total embarrassment to the party. There is considerable force in the said contention. Party has been vigilant and he has filed a suit and in the counter claim under the bona fide impression that a replication is filed has proceeded with the trial of the case as well. One cannot find total negligence on the part of the party but of course there are laches. Further the transfer of the case from one Court to another also added confusion. Therefore interest of justice requires interference in this matter and I set aside the order passed in I.A.62/07 in O.S.42/04, allow the same and direct the Court below to accept the replication filed along with the petition and if necessary frame additional issue and in case of W.P.C 1590 OF 2008 -:3:- necessity direct the other party to pay the Court fee and dispose of the matter after affording equal opportunity to both the sides in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-