IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2008 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 5487 of 2008(C) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN OS 242/97 IN OS.863/2002 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- BIJU, S/O.PURATHOOR THOTTUNGAL GEORGE, THANNYAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENT: ----------------------- JAYARAJ, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.ERENEZHATH VENGALI RAMU, THALIKULAM VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.5487/2008 C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.863/2002 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, TRICHUR DTD. 17/10/2002. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.863/2002 BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, TRICHUR DTD. 14/3/2003. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN THE SUIT INSTITUTED AS O.S.242/1997 BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE JUDGES' COURT, TRICHUR DTD. 17/06/97. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN O.S.NO.242/1997 DTD. 28/08/98. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ADDITIONALWRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN O.S.NO.242/97 DTD. 20/02/2006. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 28/09/1996 PRODUCED BEFORE THE COURT BELOW ALONG WITH EXT.P3 PLAINT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AS I.A.NO.6971/2007 IN O.S.NO.863/2002 DTD. 9/11/2007. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.A.NO.6971/2007 OM O.S.NO.863/02 DTD. 15/11/2007. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 28/11/2007 IN I.A.NO.6971/07 IN O.S.NO.863/02. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT BELOW IN I.A.NO.6972/07 IN DTD. 28/11/2007 REOPENING THE EVIDENCE IN O.S.863/02. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== W.P.(C) NO.5487 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 12th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Defendant in O.S.863/2002 on the file of Sub Court, Thrissur is the Petitioner. Plaintiff is the respondent. Suit is for specific performance to reconvey the property covered by a document in favour of respondent. Petitioner in turn filed O.S.242/1997 against the respondent for specific performance of an agreement for sale. In O.S.863/2002, respondent plaintiff filed I.A.6971/2007 and 6972/2007 which were allowed by learned Sub Judge respectively under Exts.P9 and P10 orders. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the said orders. 2. Ext.P9 order is passed in Ext.P7 petition (I.A.6971/2007), an application to send Ext.B1 sale agreement along with a document containing the signature to an expert and Ext.P10 order was passed W.P.(C)5487/2008 2 in an application to reopen the evidence. These applications were filed after the evidence in the suit was closed and when the suit stood posted for arguments. The grievance of the petitioner is that learned Sub Judge did not consider the objection and allowed the application without considering the objection raised by the petitioner and that too without a speaking order. Ext.P9 order reads:- “As it is essential for the right determination of the real dispute between the parties, I allowed this petition on costs.” Ext.P10 reads:- Allowed. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for petitioner when the evidence in the suit was recorded and the case was posted for argument and objections to the petitions are filed, learned Sub Judge is expected to hear the parties and consider W.P.(C)5487/2008 3 the objections raised and pass a reasoned order. The orders do not show what was the dispute in the suit, why the petition was not filed earlier and why the petition is to be allowed. Though Ext.P9 shows that it was allowed on cost what is the cost also not shown.As Exts.P9 and P10 are not speaking orders, they are quashed. Learned Sub Judge is directed to dispose of I.A.6971/2007 and I.A.6972/2007 afresh after considering the objections raised by petitioner and hearing the parties. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006