IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 9398 of 2010(O) ------------------------------------- [O.S. NO.19/2004 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT,THODUPUZHA] .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. JOSE, S/O.LUKA, AGED 53 YEARS, THOTTUMARIKKAL HOUSE, MANJALLOR KARA, MANJALOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 2. T.J.SEBASTIAN, CHITTAYAKKATTU THARAPPEL HOUSE, ARAKULAM KARA, ARAKULAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.V.G.ARUN, MR.T.R.HARIKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUDAYATHOOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. P.K. RAVIKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P. BHAVADASAN, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 9398 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT In this writ petition Ext.P3 order is assailed. 2. The petitioners instituted O.S. No.19 of 2004 before the Munsiff's Court, Thodupuzha for declaration of title and possession of the plaint schedule properties and for consequential relief. The defendants entered appearance. Defendants 1 to 3 filed their written statement, contending that the suit is barred by the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. They pointed out that the proceedings against property are in relation to abkari dues. 3. The 1st plaintiff was examined as PW1 and the 2nd plaintiff was examined as PW2. Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs. Since the defendants were not present, no defence evidence was adduced. The court below closed the evidence and decreed the suit. Ext.P1 judgment was passed in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs. 4. The respondents/defendants filed appeal as A.S. W.P.(C) No. 9398/2010 2 No.26 of 2006 before the District Court, Thodupuzha. The appellate court remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration, granting an opportunity to the respondents/defendants to adduce evidence. When the matter came up for trial, respondents/defendants filed I.A. No.516 of 2010 for recalling PWs.1 and 2 for cross- examination. The trial court found that there was nothing wrong in recalling PWs.1 and 2 for further cross examination and accordingly, passed the impugned order. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the order of the court below goes far beyond the scope of remand order and hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is also pointed out that going by the very order itself PWs. 1 and 2 have already been examined and cross examined. It is, therefore, pointed out that the order is bad in law. 6. It may not be so. The remand was for the purpose of adducing evidence on the side of the defendants. There is nothing wrong in recalling PWs.1 and 2 for further cross W.P.(C) No. 9398/2010 3 examination, if defence felt that it was necessary. The court below has exercised it discretion, taking into consideration the entire evidence and circumstances available before it. There is nothing to show that the impugned order is perverse or illegal. If that be so, no interference is called for. Hence, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. mn.