IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2010 / 8TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23941 of 2010(O) -------------------------- OS.2882/2007 of II ADDL.MUNSIFF'S COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SURESH @ ABRAHAM GEORGE, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.CHAKKAMANNIL GEORGE, ADUKKALAPPARA DESOM, PEECHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL), SMT.R.RAJITHA. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- RAVEENDRAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.CHIRAKKEKUNNEL PARAMESWARAN, ADUKKALAPPARA DESOM, PEECHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN 680 592. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.23941 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed by defendant No.2 in O.S.No.2882 of 2007 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff-II, Thrissur. That is a suit filed by respondent/plaintiff claiming damages of personal injury he allegedly suffered at the hands of petitioner. Respondent gave evidence as PW1 and his witness were also examined. Now the case stand posted on 02-08-2010 to examine the investigating officer who charge sheeted the criminal case. In the meantime counsel for petitioner learned that certain material questions were not put to the respondent when he was in the box. Thereon petitioner filed Ext.P3, application supported by the affidavit of counsel concerned to recall PW1 for further cross examination. Grievance of petitioner is that Ext.P3, application has not so far been disposed of and if the investigating officer is examined before PW1 is recalled and further examined, that will cause prejudice to the case set up by petitioner. In the circumstance this writ petition seeking a W.P.C.No.23941 of 2010 : 2 : direction to dispose of Ext.P3, application before investigating officer is examined. 2. I have gone through Ext.P3, application supported by the affidavit of counsel concerned where he has stated that by inadvertence he omitted to put certain relevant and material questions to PW1. There appears to be some force in the contention of petitioner that if the investigating officer is examined before PW1 were recalled and further examined, petitioner will be put to prejudice since petitioner has a case that he also suffered injury in the same incident. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I direct learned Additional Munsiff-II, Thrissur to dispose of Ext.P3, application before the investigating officer is examined. In case that application does not find favour with the learned Munsiff, petitioner shall be given sufficient time to challenge the order before investigating officer is examined. Writ petition is disposed of as above. THOMAS P JOSEPH JUDGE Sbna/