IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RP.NO. 920 OF 2011() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OPC.3563/2011 DATED 22/11/2011 REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 1ST RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------------------------- SOCIETY FOR RURAL IMPROVEMENT,P.B.NO.2, SREEMOORTHI NAGAR, KOLLENGODE P.O.,KOLLENGODE VILLAGE, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DT.,REP.BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER DR.PRABHAKARAN, S/O. LATE K.P.SANKARAN NAMBIAR, P.B.NO.2, SREEMOORTHI NAGAR, KOLLENGODE P.O.,-DO-VILLAGE,CHITOOR TALUK,PLKD DT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.MUHAMMED RAFI, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. NOORUDHEEN, PALLIYALIL HOUSE, VATTUVAMPADAM, KADAMBIDI, CHITTILANCHERRY P.O., ALATHUR VIA., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. ASHA PAULSON, W/O. PAULSON, AGED 31 YRS, KANJIRATHINCHALIL VEEDU, NENMARA P.O., CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.P. NO.920 OF 2011 IN O.P. NO.3563 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A : TRUE COPY OF THE BROCHURE LISTING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== R.P.No.920 of 2011 in O.P(C) No.3563 of 2011 & R.P. No.921 of 2011 in O.P(C) No.3564 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 16th day of December, 2011 O R D E R These Petitions are for review of common judgment dated 22.11.2011 in O.P(C) Nos.3563 and 3564 of 2011. It is stated that though petitioner-first respondent was served with notice of the Original Petitions it could not appear on time. 2. The Original Petitions were for stay of trial of O.S. No.210 and 253 of 2011 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Palakkad filed by the petitioner for recovery of money from the respondents which they allegedly misappropriated while they were in the service of petitioner. First respondent as petitioner in the Original Petitions claimed that since in respect of the same incident the Wadakkancherry Police has registered crime cases against the respondents and the matter is under investigation, compelling the first respondent to disclose his defence in the suits will cause prejudice to him as investigation is not completed R.P. Nos.920 & 921 of 2011 -: 2 :- and final reports are not filed. Hence it was prayed that until the criminal proceedings are terminated, trial of the suits may be stayed. This Court was not very much impressed by the request to stay trial of the suits until criminal proceedings are terminated but accepted the contention of first respondent that if respondents are compelled to disclose their defence in the written statements before investigation in the criminal cases is completed and final reports are filed, it is likely to cause prejudice to them. In the circumstances it was directed that further proceedings in the suits will stand stayed until final reports are filed in Crime Nos.1005 and 1007 of Wadakkancherry Police Station. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that in O.S. No.253 of 2011 second respondent has filed written statement disclosing her defence. 4. I have heard learned counsel for first respondent as well. 5. Having heard counsel on both sides I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record requiring review of the common judgment. Until final reports are filed in the respective cases trial of the suits concerned has to remain in abeyance. R.P. Nos.920 & 921 of 2011 -: 3 :- 6. But if second respondent has already filed written statement in O.S. No.253 of 2011 that will remain in the record and the direction in the common judgment will not affect written statement if any filed by the second respondent in O.S. No.253 of 2011. In other respects there is no reason to review the common judgment. Making it clear that in case second respondent has filed written statement in O.S. No.253 of 2011, direction in the common judgment will not affect the written statement already filed by the second respondent in that suit, these Review Petitions are closed. If petitioner is apprehensive that investigation of the crime cases might be unnecessarily prolonged, it is open it to approach appropriate court with petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as provided under law. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv