IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP(C).No. 3571 of 2011(O) ------------------------- OS.199/2006 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: -------------------- E.A.JOY,AGED 50 YEARS,S/O.E.V.ANTONY EDUTHAN HOUSE,THALORE VILLAGE, P.O DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: --------------- R.AJITHKUMAR,S/O.K.RAMACHANDRAN, ANANDA NILAYAM,VANDANMEDU DESOM, VANDANMEDU P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2011 ALONG WITH OP(C).Nos. 3573 and 3581of 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 3571 of 2011 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1. : TRUE COPY OF THE A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO.199/206 DATED 20.2.06 ON THE FILE OF SUB-COURT, THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P2. : TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S NO. 199/2006 DATED 31.10-.2006. EXHIBIT P3. : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN 74/2008 DATED 17.10.2008 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /True Copy/ P.A to Judge THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).Nos.3571, 3573 and 3581 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 03rd day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Notice to the respondents is dispensed with in view of the decision I propose to take. 2. Petitioner, common in all the cases is the plaintiff in O.S.Nos.199, 206 and 146 of 2006 of the Court of learned Principal Sub Judge, Thrissur. Petitioner filed those suits against the respondents for recovery of money based on cheques allegedly issued by respondents and dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Petitioner, based on the dishonour of the same cheques had initiated criminal proceedings against respondents as S.T.Nos.1523, 1634 and 1635 of 2006. According to the petitioner, respondents filed Tr.P(Crl).Nos.72, 74 and 75 of 2008 in this Court requesting to transfer those criminal cases to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam and obtained stay of proceedings in those cases pending before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thrissur. Grievance of petitioner is that learned Principal Sub Judge is not posting the civil cases for trial notwithstanding that the steps are completed, under the impression that the stay pertains to proceedings in the O.P(C).Nos.3571, 3573 and 3581 of 2011 -: 2 :- civil proceedings as well. Learned counsel asserts that no Court has stayed trial of the civil proceedings. 3. If proceedings before the Civil Court is not stayed by any Court, there is no reason why learned Principal Sub Judge should not proceed with the trial of those cases as provided under law. Learned Sub Judge shall ascertain from the counsel for respondents/defendants whether any order of stay has been passed by any Court in respect of the civil proceedings and if necessary, grant time for production of such order of stay, if any. In case there is no stay, learned Principal Sub Judge shall consider whether the suits could be posted for trial in the list having regard to the fact that the suits are of the year, 2006 and the claim made by petitioner in the respective suits is for a few lakhs of rupees. With the above direction these petitions are disposed of. Sd/- (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-