IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29571 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- OS.362/2005 of SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- T.R. BHASI, AGED 68, S/O.RAMAN, THATTARUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHENVELIKKARA MURI, PUTHENVELIKKARA VILLAGE, PARAVOOR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) MR.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. PARAKKADAVU BLOCK PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY. 2. KERALA SIRKAR, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.29571 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs: i. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Additional Sub Court, North Paravur to consider and pass orders in Ext.P1 petition before the disposal of the suit. ii. to call for the records leading to Ext.P6 order and to quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari. iii. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Additional Sub Court, North Paravur to reconsider and pass appropriate orders in Exts.P4 and P5. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.362 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, North Paravur. Suit is for WPC.29571/09 2 recovery of money in respect of a contract work done by the plaintiff for the defendant Panchayath. Admittedly, the evidence in the case has been completed, but, thereafter petitioner/plaintiff moved an application for reopening the evidence, producing some documents. The court below declined that request vide Ext.P6 order. Previously, petitioner/plaintiff had moved Ext.P1 application for appointment of a Commissioner, but, without allowing that application, the case was included in the list and evidence was recorded, is the grievance of the petitioner. In the writ petition, petitioner seeks for issue of appropriate writ, order or direction to the court below to consider and dispose Ext.P1 application and also to set aside Ext.P6 order declining his request for leading additional evidence in the case. 4. I heard the leaned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary, and, hence, it is dispensed with. The nonconsideration of Ext.P1 application is detrimental to WPC.29571/09 3 the plaintiff in substantiating the suit claim, and so much so, an opportunity has to be extended to the plaintiff to take out a commission by issuing appropriate directions/orders to the curt below, is the submission of the learned counsel. I am not impressed by the submissions made by the counsel. The evidence in the case, after being included in the special list, has already been recorded, and only thereafter the present request is made by fling this writ petition. Nothing prevented the petitioner from inviting the attention of the court below before the case was included in the special list for taking up Ext.P1 application and issue of appropriate orders/directions. At this stage, it is not proper and appropriate for this Court to give any direction or order to the court below with respect to Ext.P1 application. So far as Ext.P6 order is also concerned, which is challenged in the writ petition, after going through that order, I find there is no impropriety or illegality. I make it clear that I am not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and none of the observations in the judgment shall be construed or interpreted in any manner as having any bearing or influence over any of the questions arising for adjudication WPC.29571/09 4 in the suit. Subject to the above observations, this writ petition is disposed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp