IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 15TH BHADRA 1933 OP(C).No. 2670 of 2011(O) ------------------------- OS.178/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- SUJATHA,AGED 46, W/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, AYYARKULANGARA,THEKEDATH HOUSE, VAIKKOM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENTS: --------------- VARGHESE,S/O.KURIAKOSE, MANOLIL HOUSE,SOUTH VAZHAKULAM, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK 683 542. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 2670 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.178 OF 2009 ON the FILE OF THE SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR DTD 23.06.2009 EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.APPEAL NO.178/2010 ON the FILE OF THE ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, ERNAKULAM DTD 04.12.2010 EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN EXT.P1 SUIT DTD 13.12.2007 EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE PETITIONER DTD 13.07.2007 BEFORE the POST MASTER, HEAD POST OFFICE, PARAVUR EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE WITNESS LIST FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD 05.08.2011 EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN I.A.NO.1493/2011 IN O.S.NO.178/2009 DTD 05.08.2011 ON the FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PERUMBAVOOR RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.2670 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 06th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Respondent is served but there is no response. 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.178 of 2009 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Perumbavoor. That is a suit filed by the respondent for recovery of money as per a cheque allegedly issued by petitioner. Petitioner had denied the transaction as pleaded by respondent and contended that he has issued a notice to the respondent by registered post with acknowledgment due demanding return of the documents he had entrusted to the respondent. In the course of evidence respondent denied that he had received any such notice. Petitioner wanted to examine the Post Master concerned to prove the documents produced along with I.A.No.1493 of 2011, a complaint allegedly preferred by petitioner to the Post Master stating that the acknowledgment card (for alleged service of notice on the respondent) is not received back and a receipt of lodging that complaint. Petitioner also wanted a few other witnesses to be examined. That application was allowed in part by the learned Munsiff as per Ext.P6, order dated August 5, 2011 - the prayer to receive the O.P(C).No.2670 of 2011 -: 2 :- documents was allowed but the request to issue summons to the witnesses was rejected. To the extent Ext.P6, order went against the petitioner, it is under challenge. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner does not want to examine witness Nos.1 and 2 in the schedule of witnesses filed along with I.A.No.1493 of 2011 but, petitioner may be permitted to examine witness No.3 (Post Master, Paravur Head Post Office, North Paravur) to prove the documents that has already been ordered to be received by the learned Munsiff by Ext.P6, order. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to allow the request. Resultantly this original petition is allowed and Ext.P6, order to the extent it disallowed the request of petitioner to examine witness No.3 in the schedule of witnesses filed along with I.A.No.1493 of 2011 is set aside. I.A.No.1493 of 2011 (in O.S.No.178 of 2009 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Perumbavoor) is allowed also to the extent that petitioner is permitted to examine the said witness (witness No.3 referred above) as well on his side. Sd/- (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-