IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7623 of 2009(O) OS.437/2007 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, VAIKOM PETITIONER: --------------- MATHEW THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, VATTAKANDATHIL, THALAYOLAPARAMPU P.O., VADAYAR VILLAGE, VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI RESPONDENT: --------------- SAJI JACOB, MALAKKAYIL HOUSE, PALAKKUZHA KARA, KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 7623 OF 2009 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th March, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed by the second defendant in O.S.No.437 of 2007, on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Vaikom. The suit was filed by the respondent claiming benefits under Section 60(b) of the Easements Act. The prayer in the suit is for a declaration that the licence granted by the father of the defendants in respect of the plaint A schedule property in favour of the plaintiff is irrevocable under Section 60(b) of the Easements Act. There is also a prayer for permanent prohibitory injunction. 2. The suit was listed for trial. The petitioner/2nd defendant filed an application for removal of the case from the list. He also filed an application to adjourn the trial of the suit. Both these applications were considered by the court below and were dismissed by Exts.P5 and P6 orders dated 2.3.2009. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the document on which the plaintiff relied on to substantiate his case is a forged one. A criminal case was initiated against the plaintiff and the document in question was sent for examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory. It is stated that W.P.(C) NO.7623 OF 2009 :: 2 :: the document was not returned after examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory. According to the petitioner/2nd defendant, unless the document and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory are available, a final and effective adjudication of the suit would not be possible. The application was opposed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that the suit need not be adjourned and the plaintiff is satisfied with the evidence that is available. It was contended that the writ petitioner is trying to protract the trial of the case. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the trial has begun and the evidence on the side of the plaintiff is almost over. The court below dismissed the applications submitted by the petitioner on the ground that the trial of the suit need not be stayed pending consideration of the criminal case, which is unconnected with the reliefs prayed for in the suit. The view taken by the court below appears to be correct. There is no ground for adjourning the trial of the suit. The Writ Petition lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/