IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7399 of 2008(E) ------------------------- I.A.No.5652/07 & I.A.No.6346/07 IN OS.460/2000 of PRL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. TECHNOPARK CLUB, TECHNOPARK CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY K.R.SREEKUMAR. 2. SECRETARY, M/S. TECHNOPARK CLUB, TECHNOPARK CAMPUS, KAZHAKKOOTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENTS: ------------- DAVIS KARADAN, S/O. LATE JOHN KARADAN, 15-47, C-4, GOOD EARTH HAVELI, EROOR WEST P.O., ERNAKULAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ---------------------- W.P.(C)No. 7399 OF 2008 ----------------------------- DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2008 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is preferred with a prayer to set aside Exhibits P10 and P12. Exhibit P10 is an order in I.A.No.5652/07 whereby the Court below allowed an application filed by the defendant for issuance of a commission. Exhibit P12 is an order passed in I.A.No.6346/07 whereby the plaintiff filed an application to review the order passed by the Court below. That also ended in dismissal. The brief facts of the case would reveal that initially the defendant moved an application for issuance of a commission. It was dismissed by the Court below on account of the objection raised by the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved an application for issuance of a commission. It was dismissed by the Court below on the ground that since the plaintiff has objected the issuance of a commission earlier, the commission shall not be issued. The matter came up before this Court. This Court in W.P.(C)No.28712/06 declined to interfere W.P.(C)No.7399/08 2 with the order of the Court below. Thereafter a stage is reached, where the applications filed by the plaintiff as well as the defendant for issuance of a commission were rejected by the same Court. Thereafter again an application was filed by the defendant. Without adverting to any of these materials, the Court simply allows that application for issuance of a commission. The plaintiff's attempt failed to get that order reviewed and ultimately the matter has again landed before this Court. But I do not discuss further, for the reason that the fact speaks for itself. Therefore, the order under challenge requires fresh consideration. Therefore, I set aside the order passed by the Court below and direct the Court below to consider I.A.No.5652/07 afresh taking into consideration the previous history of this litigation which is available before it. The Court shall also hear the defendant in the suit before finally taking a decision in the matter. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE. dsn