IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6631 of 2008(M) ------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.754/08 IN O.S.305/02 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHERTHALA) PETITIONER: ------------ RAMESAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.LATE PAPPUNNI, ATHIKKAPPALLIL VALAMANGALAM NORTH MURI, THURAVOOR SOUTH VILLAGE CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. VARGHESE, S/O.LATE THOMMAN SANJO BHAVAN FROM VADASSERIL, VALAMANGALAM NORTH MURI, THURAVOOR SOUTH VILLAGE CHERTHALA (DIED) 2. LILLYKUTTY,W/O.LATE VARGHESE SANJO BHAVAN FROM VADASSERIL VALAMANGALAM NORTH MURI, THURAVOOR SOUTH VILLAGE CHERTHALA . 3. FR.THOMAS POOCHAKKATTU,S/O.LATE VARGHESE SANJO BHAVAN FROM VADASSERIL VALAMANGALAM NORTH MURI, THURAVOOR SOUTH VILLAGE CHERTHALA . THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 6631 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 26th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Principal Munsiff, Cherthala, in IA 754/08 in OS 305/02. The said application is filed by the 4th defendant seeking permission to cross- examine the legal representatives of the plaintiff as well as the Commissioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit is one for mandatory injunction and also for consequential prohibitory injunction. During the pendency of the suit and after examination of PW1, the plaintiff died. His legal representatives are impleaded. It is submitted that there was a move for settling the matter. Counsel for the defendants at that point of time did not cross-examine the Commissioner. Now it is submitted that there is a pleading for adverse possession raised by the defendants, evidence is mandatory and they have to cross-examine the Commissioner as well. It was only on account of the mistaken advice given by the counsel it happened to be recorded as no evidence for the defendants. In the WPC NO 6631/08 2 facts and circumstances of the case and the points involved, it is evident that evidence has to be let in by the parties. Therefore I direct the court below to give opportunity to the defendants to adduce evidence and also grant permission to cross- examine the Commissioner. Needless to say, if the plaintiff wants to let in evidence additionally, that also must be permitted by the court. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 6631/08 3 WPC NO 6631/08 4