IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 W.P(C).No. 34983 of 2008(M) -------------------------------------- OS.505/2006 OF I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM ............................. PETITIONER : ----------------------- A.K.PARTHAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.KADUTHAPILLAI, ARAKKAL HOUSE, KANDANAD P.O. UDAYAMPEEROOR. BY ADV. SRI.C.N.SAMEER RESPONDENT : ----------------------- RAJEEV MAMMEN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.P.K.MAMMEN, PARAYIL HOUSE, TAGORE NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA P.O., ERNAKULAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------- W.P(C). No. 34983 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT I have obtained report from the Sub Judge, Ernakulam and heard the counsel for the petitioner as to whether what has been complied with by the Sub Judge is strictly in conformity with the direction issued by this court. This court in para 2 of the Exhibit P1 judgment in W.P(C).No. 34493 of 2008 directed the Sub Judge to pass appropriate orders on 24/11/2008 enabling the petitioner's son being examined as a witness on the defence side as it was submitted that other than his evidence no other evidence is required to be adduced on the defence side. The submission then was that what the petitioner wants is the evidence to be furnished by his son to be examined on his side and no other evidence and that was what was recorded as noted above in Exhibit P1. Exhibit P1 judgment was passed on 21/11/2008. Immediately thereafter contrary to the submissions made before this court, the petitioner filed Exhibits P3, P4 and P5 in the court below on 22/11/2008. Those are I.A. Nos. 8801 of 2008, 8800 of 2008 and 8802 of 2008. In Exhibit P3, the prayer is to accept Photostat copies of W.P(C). No. 34983/2008 2 the originals of certain documents. The prayer in Exhibit P4 is to issue summons to the village personnel, Manakkunnam for examination as witnesses and prayer in Exhibit P5 is for a direction being issued to the plaintiff to produce the originals of the documents mentioned in the list of documents filed by the petitioner. Obviously when these petitions are allowed, it will further delay the trial and disposal of the listed suit. However, that by itself no doubt, is not a ground for not allowing those prayers. But, however these petitions are filed by the petitioner on an afterthought after delivering of Exhibit P1 judgment on 21/11/2008 and the submission then was that the petitioner/defendant wants to examine for evidence on his side only his son, in whose favour he had executed Exhibit P5 Power of Attorney mentioned in the said petition authorising him to conduct the case on behalf of the petitioner. The Sub Judge has reported that Exhibit P1 judgment was produced before her on 24/11/2008 as directed, that accordingly the son of the petitioner/defendant was examined as witness and counsel for the defendant submitted that evidence was over but he prayed time for hearing the matter and accordingly the case was posted to 25/11/2008, on which day the defence counsel who was present in the court W.P(C). No. 34983/2008 3 submitted that he would argue the case after the roll call, but the defence counsel was absent thereafter and so the case was taken for judgment and posted on 27/11/2008. I see no reason to disbelieve the report submitted by the Sub Judge, as the statement made before this court while Exhibit P1 judgment was also that the petitioner/defendant wants to examine for evidence on his side only his son/power of attorney holder and no other witness. In a listed suit whatever is to be done by the parties to establish their case is to be done sufficiently early. It is not that when the trial was started on 19/11/2008 the petitioner can file petitions one after another in the nature of Exhibits P3, P4 and P5 and that too after submitting before this court that the son of the petitioner alone need to be examined in evidence on his side. Filing of this writ petition in the circumstance by the petitioner/defendant is ill-conceived and to protract the disposal of the suit and does not deserve any merit and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, I dismiss this writ petition. K.P. BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE scm