IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 33586 of 2008(W) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/10/2008 IN IA872/08 IN OS.7/2006 of MUNI-MAGI.COURT,PERINTHALMANNA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MAHILA SAMAJAM NURSERY SCHOOL, PERINTHALMANNA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT T.K. HAFSA MOHAMMED, W/O.V.P. MOHAMMED, PERINTHALMANNA.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, FIRST DEFENDANT IN THE O.S NO. 7 OF 2006 BY ADV. SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEITY OF SREE ALAYAKKAT VISHNU TEMPLE, REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND AND CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES, M.K. SUKUMARAN, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, SREE ALAYAKKAT VISHNU TEMPLE, PERINTHALMANNA.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE CHAIRMNA, BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SREE ALAYAKKAT VISHNU TEMPLE, PERINTHALMANNA.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (PLAINTIFF IN THE O.S NO. 7 OF 2006) ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN FOR R2 SRI.P.A.HARISH FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 33586/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT, PETITION TO RECEIVE THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN I.A.NO.872/2008 AND THE ORDER DTED.28.10.2008. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.33586 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 10th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the first defendant and the respondents are plaintiffs in O.S.No.7/2006 before the Munsiff's Court, Perinthalmanna. The suit is one for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the petitioner. The petitioner claims that they are running an anganavady for the welfare of the poor children in that property with the assistance of the Government. The petitioner filed a written statement and the case was listed for evidence. The evidence of the plaintiffs is over. The counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner reported that they have no oral evidence. While so, the petitioner filed a petition for calling for the records in OS No.57/1976, which, according to the petitioner, was an earlier suit between the same parties, in which, there was a compromise decree. The petitioner also filed a petition to receive additional written statement taking the contention of res judicata. Although the Munsiff allowed the petition to call for the records in O.S.No.57/76, the application to receive additional written statement was rejected by Ext.P1 single line order as follows:- “Highly belated petition. Hence dismissed”. The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner's contention is that the Munsiff passed the order without applying his mind to the facts of the case and without hearing the matter in open court. According to the petitioner, the order was passed in the chambers itself without hearing the parties. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents stoutly opposes the relief prayed for in the writ petition. According to him, it is after the entire evidence was over that the petitioner had filed the petition to accept the additional written statement and the Munsiff rightly rejected the petition as highly belated. 4. After hearing both sides, I am of opinion that the Munsiff ought to have passed a speaking order after hearing both parties. In the above circumstances, I quash Ext.P1 and direct the Munsiff to pass fresh orders in I.A.No.872/2008 after hearing both parties and considering the contention of both parties. Orders shall be passed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge