IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2008 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8563 of 2008(T) ------------------------- OS.78/2004 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ JOSEPH, S/O.CHACKO, MANGARA HOUSE, CHEMBILAVU P.O., KIDANGOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENTS: ------------- DHARMARAJAN, PATTASSERIL HOUSE, KATTACHIRA, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.8563 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Kottayam whereby the court below had refused permission to serve interrogatories on the other party. 2. I have gone through the petition filed and the entire attempt is to make a situation regarding certain admissions said to be made by the other party in a criminal proceeding. Certainly, a statement made before the court in another proceeding is admissible in evidence provided it is put to that witness and an opportunity is given for explanation. It has been time and again held by the court that a party may make a particular statement in a particular context and therefore, an opportunity has to be given for giving explanation and thereafter, the court can rely upon that portion to believe or disbelieve the witness in the case. Now what is attempted to be introduced is to put those versions given in the evidence in the form of an interrogatory and the party to answer those WPC 8563/2008 2 interrogatories. It is nothing short of fishing out of evidence and circumventing the legal procedure which one is expected to follow in the case of a trial. I am in perfect agreement with the learned Subordinate Judge who has refused serving interrogatories. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. I make it clear that as provided by law always that witness can be confronted with his previous statement and the court can follow the same and proceed with the matter. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE csl