IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19257 of 2010(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN AS 53/2009 IN AS.52/2009 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT -II, THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S)/1ST APPELLANT :- ----------------------------------------------- SUNNY MATHEW, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, PUTHIYEDATHU HOUSE, THODUPUZHA KARA, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT :- ---------------------------------------------- ALEX, S/O.ULAHANNAN, AGED 42 YEARS, BUSINESS, KOOTUMALUPUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, PUTHUPARIYARAM KARA, MANAKKADU VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA KARA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C) No.19257 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 21st day of June 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is appellant No.1 in A.S.Nos.52 of 2009 and 53 of 2009 of the court of learned Additional District Judge, Thodupuzha. 2. According to the petitioner, in those appeals, petitioner and others had filed applications for amendment of the plaint. As those applications were not taken up for disposal petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.11964 of 2010 for a direction to the learned Additional District Judge to dispose of the said applications before judgment is pronounced in the appeals. This Court issued a direction and the amendment applications were dismissed. Grievance of petitioner is that without hearing petitioner and other appellants, learned District Judge is proposing to pronounce W.P.(C) No.19257 of 2010 : 2 : judgment in the appeals this day (21.6.2010) which according to the learned counsel would result in injustice to the petitioner and other appellants. 3. As per the submission of learned counsel, learned Additional District Judge is to dispose of the appeals this day. If the appeals are disposed against the petitioner and other appellants without hearing them, there are sufficient provisions in the code of civil procedure to meet such a contingency if petitioner and other appellants are aggrieved by the disposal. I find no reason to interfere in the matter, at this stage. Writ petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Jvt