IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP(C).No. 1293 of 2010(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15/12/2010 IN IA 1383/2010 IN OS.292/2007 of SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ T.D.GEORGE, S/O.DAVID, THENGANAL VEETIL VALAMBOOR KARA, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE, BY ADV. SMT.M.M.DEEPA SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.M.GIJYMON, S/O.MATHEW, KODAKKALLIL HOUSE, THENGODEKARA OONNUKAL-675 001, 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 1293 of 2010(O) ------------------------- PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1:- COPY OF ORDER DATED 8.12.2010 IN I.A.NO.1366/2010 IN O.S.NO.292 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SUBORDINATE COURT, PERUMBAVOOR. EXT.P2:- COPY OF APPLICATION IN I.A.NO.1383/10 IN O.S.NO.292/07 ON THE FILE OF THE SUBORDINATE COURT, PERUMBAVOOR. EXT.P3:-COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.15.12.2010 IN I.A.NO.1383 OF 2010 IN O.S.NO.292/07 ON THE FILE OF THE SUBORDINATE COURT, PERUMBAVOOR. RESPONDENTS EXTS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ O.P(C).No.1293 of 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.292 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Perumbavoor. The suit is for realisation of damages of Rs.5 lakhs. The suit was listed for trial. The plaintiff was examined. The plaintiff wanted to examine one witness. Additional witness list was filed. It is stated that the additional witness list could not be brought to the notice of the court and therefore, the court below closed the plaintiff's evidence. The request for examining one witness was rejected by the order dated 8th December, 2010. 2. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1383 of 2010 to review that order. The court below dismissed that application as well. O.P(C).No.1293 of 2010 2 3. The prayer of the petitioner is only to examine one more witness. It is true that there are laches on the part of the petitioner. However, to avoid any objection that the evidence was shut out, it would be ideal for both parties, if the plaintiff is afforded an opportunity to examine the witness. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders passed by the court below in this regard are set aside. The court below shall permit the petitioner to examine one witness from the additional witness schedule. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not request for adjournment of the case. The Original Petition is allowed as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms