IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2008 / 17TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20485 of 2008(L) ------------------------------------- OS.67/1999 of SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ AJAYAN, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.SANKARA KUTTY, KUTTANELLUR, NADATHARA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.G.SURESH SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. SUDHAKARAN, S/O.KUNJAYYAPPAN, MADATHIPARAMBIL, NADATHARA, THRISSUR. 2. P.DEVISAROJAM, W/O.NARAYANAN, #29/657, KORANDATTIL LANE, SHORNUR ROAD, THRISSUR. 3. CHANDRIKA BALAN, W/O. BALAN, KUDILINGAL HOUSE, MINOR ROAD, NADATHARA, THRISSUR. 4. BAIJU, S/O/ VELAPPANKUTTY, CHETTUPUZHA, PULLAZHI VILLAGE, ELTHURUTHU P.O., THRISSUR. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED THROUGH GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... WP(C).No. 20485 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF JULY, 2008 JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for a direction to to Sub Judge, Thrissur to accept Ext.P2 written statement filed by the petitioner and also to pass appropriate order in Ext.P3 and P6 and not to proceed with the suit till the disposal of the petitions. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. The allegation in the writ petition is that plaintiff in that suit informed petitioner that he is being impleaded in the suit as a formal party and he will engage a counsel and petitioner obliged the plaintiff and agreed to be a formal party and accepted the counsel suggested by the plaintiff and entrusted him his vakalath with instructions to file written statement and did not verify whether written statement was filed and later the counsel informed that he is stopping practice and asked petitioner to take back the records and thereafter petitioner engaged a counsel and took back file from the original counsel and entrusted it to the present counsel and then petitioner was informed that a written statement was not filed and in such WP(C) 20485/2008 2 circumstances, petitioner filed Ext.P2 written statement along with Ext.P3 petition to receive the same along with Ext.P6 petition to remove the suit from the special list and Ext.P5 petition to receive the documents produced under Ext.P4 list. It was contended that in the circumstances of the case, learned Sub Judge is to be directed to receive the written statement and not to proceed with the suit till orders are passed in Ext.P3 to P6 applications. 3. Though learned counsel appearing for petitioner vehemently argued that trial court is to be directed not to proceed with the trial, on hearing the learned counsel, I am not inclined to grant the said relief. As petitioner has filed Ext.P3 petition to receive Ext.P2 written statement, learned Sub Judge is directed to pass appropriate order in Ext.P3 petition in accordance with law immediately. Similarly, if the written statement is to be received as sought for in Ext.P3, learned Sub Judge has to pass appropriate order in Ext.P5 petition. Writ petition is disposed accordingly. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-