IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7613 of 2008(F) ------------------------- CMA.44/2006 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA I.A.No.2613/06 in OS.1418/2006 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ K.R.BABU, AGED 47, S/O.KANAKASSERY RAGHAVAN, NOW RESIDING AT "ASWATHI", KANDESWARAM, NEAR K.S.R.T.C. BUS STAND, IRINJALAKUDA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SMITHA, AGED 42, W/O.LATE K.R.SHAJAN, KOSSERY GARDEN CITY, KUTTANELLUR P.O., THRISSUR. 2. RAHUL, AGED 15, MINOR, S/O.LATE K.R.SHAJAN, REP. BY THE MOTHER, GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND SMITHA, KOSSERY GARDEN CITY, KUTTANELLUR P.O., THRISSUR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 7613 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Irinjalakuda in CMA 44/06. The said CMA was preferred against the order in IA 2613/06 in OS 1418/06. It is seen in the interim application passed by the lower court that the court has directed the order, which was passed on 6.8.07, to continue until further orders. In the CMA also that was not disturbed. 2. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has placed before me the materials to show that the plaintiff has retired. A perusal of the courts order also would reveal “if it is found that his retirement as alleged by the respondent is true, he will not press this application. True, that the documents are warranted to arrive at for a determination whether the petitioner is a retired partner or not”. So the trial court disposed of the matter in that line. The appellate court went further and held that there is some dispute regarding the arbitrability of the case and also regarding maintainability of the suit. These are all matters, which may have to be considered by the court WPC NO 7613/08 2 in accordance with law. Since the document, which is necessary for a disposal of the petition is available now, it is only proper that the trial court considers the interim application IA 2613/06 afresh in the light of its own observations. Therefore I set aside the orders passed in the interim application as well as the CMA and direct the trial court to consider IA 2613/06 afresh in the light of the documents produced, after hearing both sides, if possible, prior to the court closes for summer holidays. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 7613/08 3 WPC NO 7613/08 4