IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21307 of 2008(J) -------------------------- OS.131/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT, PEERUMEDU .................... PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.PUTHENPURAKAL BOREWELLS, KATTAPPANA KARA, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, P.S.SUNIMON KATTAPPANA KARA, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ------------- KUMALI GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KUMALI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KUMALI KARA, KUMALI VILLAGE, PEERUMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21307 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 15th July, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.131 of 2006, on the file of Munsiff Court, Peerumedu. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Exts.P4 and P6 orders. Ext.P4 order is passed in Ext.P3 petition. Ext.P3 petition is to receive a witness list and to issue hand over summons to the witnesses. Ext.P6 order is passed in Ext.P5 petition. Ext.P5 is an application for adjournment of the case. Under Ext.P6 order, it was dismissed. Under Ext.P4 order, Ext.P3 petition was dismissed. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that as stated in the affidavit of Ext.P5 petition, petitioner was originally represented by Advocate Shajimon, a counsel from Kattapana, and on the evening of 9.7.2008, he relinguished vakalath and new vakalath was entrusted to Advocate K.V.Abraham, who filed the affidavit seeking time to cross examine the witness and to study the papers, which should have been allowed by the learned Munsiff. W.P.(C) No.21307/2008 2 3. The suit is included in the special list, so that parties would get ready for recording the evidence. If the counsel originally appeared for the petitioner is not in a position to conduct the case on behalf of the petitioner, counsel should have relinguished the vakalath earlier, so that another counsel could be engaged in time to proceed with the trial. What is stated by the counsel in Ext.P5 affidavit is that the earlier counsel relinguished the vakalath only on the previous day on which the suit was included in the special list, and, therefore, the counsel could not get ready in the suit, and in such circumstances, learned Munsiff should have granted adjournment. Even though such a prayer cannot be accepted in all cases, in the circumstance of the case, learned Munsiff could have granted a short adjournment and proceeded with the trial. 4. In such circumstances, Ext.P6 order is quashed. Learned Munsiff is directed to pass fresh orders in I.A.No.519 of 2006. Learned Munsiff can direct petitioner to pay cost to the respondents and grant a short adjournment. Petitioner shall not seek further adjournment. The writ petition is disposed as above. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.