IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 259 of 2009(E) ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/11/2008 IN IA 7849/08 IN OS.84/2005 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. CRIME FORTNIGHTLY, REPRESENTED BY T.P.NANDAKUMAR, OWNER, PRINTER & PUBLISHER. 2. T.P.NANDAKUMAR, CHIEF EDITOR, CRIME FORTNIGHTLY, S/O.K.DAMODARAN NAIR, VAZHAYIL BUILDING, SHENOY ROAD, KALOOR,KOCHI-17. BY MR.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADVS. MR.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI MR.J.R.PREM NAVAZ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- PRIYANKA, FILM ACTRESS, D/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, SAI KRIPA, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24. ADV. MR.S.SREEKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.259/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICTION DTD. 24.10.08 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN OS. 84/2005. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 7.11.08 IN IA. NO.7849/08 IN OS. 84/05. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.259 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of October 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) To call for the records leading to the issue of Ext.P2 and quash the same by issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. ii) To permit the petitioners to examine the Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruvalla, to prove the possession of the tape record in which the conversation between PW3 and the defendant is recorded. iii) To issue such other writs, orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. W.P.(C).No.259 OF 2009 Page numbers 2. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S No.84 of 2005 on the file of Second Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. Suit was one for compensation, and the respondent is the defendant. Admittedly the trial has commenced and evidence is already completed. The petitioners/plaintiffs moved an application for recalling one of the witnesses examined earlier, PW3, for putting some more questions in the light of the evidence already let in the case. That application, after hearing both sides, was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge vide Ext.P2 order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. Perusing Ext.P2 order, it is seen, similar request was made earlier, but, that being declined, a challenge was made by a writ petition. That writ W.P.(C).No.259 OF 2009 Page numbers petition was disposed reserving the right of the petitioner to challenge the correctness of the order impugned in the appeal, if at all an adverse decision is passed against him in the suit. When that be so, I cannot find fault with the court below in not allowing the request of the plaintiff for recalling PW3, one of the witnesses already examined in the case. I make it clear that it is open to the petitioners to challenge the correctness of the order impugned as indicated in the previous judgment in writ petition No.26449/2007. Writ petition is disposed directing the court below to dispose the suit in accordance with law considering the facts and circumstances involved and the evidence let in the case. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv