IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2011 / 17TH ASHADHA 1933 OP(C).No. 2077 of 2011(O) ------------------------- OA.273/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY .................... PETITIONER: ----------------------- M.G.VINODHAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MECHIRA DESOM,KODASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- ANITHA SURESH, W/O.MANAPARAMBIL SURESH, MECHIRA DESOM, KODASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 146. BY ADVS. SRI.SANGEETH C. SUBRAMANIAN, SMT.M.BINDUDAS. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss OP(C) NO,2077/2011 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.273/2008 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY. P2: COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DTD. 16/08/2010. P3: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.PCB/TAC/WP/236/2006 DTD.10/06/2008. P4: COPY OF THE I.A.NO.1148/2011 IN O.S.273/08 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT. P5: COPY OF THE WITNESS LIST FILED ALONG WITH EXT.P4. P6: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.1148/2011 IN O.S.273/2008 DTD.24/6/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.2077 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 08th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Respondent appears through counsel. 2. Defendant in O.S.No.273 of 2008 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Chalakkudy is the petitioner before me challenging Ext.P6, order whereby request of petitioner/defendant to summon additional witnesses was disallowed. The dispute concerns operation of a quarry which according to the respondent is being operated without necessary permit/license. Petitioner contends that he was running the quarry from the year 2000 onwards with necessary permit and whatever permission is required from the authorities concerned. Petitioner wanted to prove the latest consent he is said to have obtained from the Pollution Control Board on 16.08.2010 for running the quarry. The documents were marked Exts.P2 and P3 subject to proof. Thereon, petitioner filed Ext.P4, I.A.No.1148 of 2011 to accept additional witness schedule. That application was dismissed by Ext.P6, order. Learned Munsiff observed that application seeking permission for examination of 11 witnesses on summons is highly belated and that there is no satisfactory O.P(C).No.2077 of 2011 -: 2 :- explanation for the inordinate delay. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in view of the dispute involved, petitioner may be permitted to examine the witnesses in the additional witness schedule. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that there is no explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the application. 4. Assuming that there was some delay in filing the application, it is not as if the request for examination of additional witnesses, if evidence of those witnesses is relevant for adjudication of the dispute should have been rejected for the reason of delay alone. The delay if any could have been corrected by the common curative of cost. Parties must get opportunity to adduce relevant evidence. I must also note that Exts.P2 and P3 are marked subject to proof because respondent objected to it. I am not inclined to think that dismissal of application for the mere reason of delay is justified but, I am not allowing I.A.No.1148 of 2011 in this proceeding for the reason that the question whether all the witnesses mentioned in the additional witness schedule are required to be examined or not has to be considered by the learned Munsiff. If learned Munsiff is satisfied that the delay is not explained and it is inordinate O.P(C).No.2077 of 2011 -: 3 :- delay, it is within the power of the learned Munsiff to direct petitioner to pay cost for belated presentation of the application. Resultantly this original petition is allowed. Ext.P6, order is set aside and I.A.No.1148 of 2011 (in O.S.No.273 of 2008) is remitted to the Court of learned Munsiff, Chalakkudy for fresh decision in the light of the observation made above. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-