IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 37625 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.186/2006 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- KARTHIKEYAN, AGED 69, S/O.ITTAN, RESIDING AT CHANIYIL, CHERTHALA KIZHAKKUM MURI, KOKKOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE FROM PONNAPPURATH ALSO CALLED AS KUNNATHARAYAYA KARICHIRAYIL, -DO- MURI, -DO- VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE MR.ADEEP ANWAR RESPONDENT: --------------- RUDRANI, D/O.MADHAVI AMMA, AGED 73 RESIDING AT KOLLAMPARAMBIL, CHERTHALA KIZHAKKUM MURI, KOKKOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, FROM PONNAPPURATH ALSO CALLED AS KUNNATHARAYAYA KARICHIRAYIL, -DO- MURI, -DO- VILLAGE. ADV. MR.JOBY CYRIAC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 37625 of 2009(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: PLAINT IN O.S.NO.186/06 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA. EXT.P2: WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED ON 9.7.2009. EXT.P4: ORDER DATED 8.12.2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL ... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.37625 Of 2009 ---------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.186 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Munsiff Court, Cherthala. Ext.P4 order is under challenge. The learned Munsiff directed the petitioner/defendant to adduce evidence in the first instance and appointed an advocate commissioner for recording evidence. Aggrieved by the said order petitioner/defendant has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. When the matter was taken up for final hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff reported that pursuant to Ext.P4 order evidence was recorded on the side of the defendant. The defendant and his witnesses were examined and the defence evidence was closed. In the light of the fact that the defendant adduced evidence as directed by the court in Ext.P4 order, the question of legality of Ext.P4 order does not survive for consideration. Therefore the writ petition is dismissed. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-