IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18886 of 2008(W) -------------------------- OS.700/2005 of PRL.M.C., KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ MOHANACHANDRAN NAIR, 69 YEARS S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR, LAOLA NIVAS, ERICADU KARA, PUTHUPPALLY BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP SRI.SADER E.REAZ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. PRINCE.V.ABRAHAM, VALIYAPARAMBIL, PROPRIETOR, PRINCE RUBBERS, ERICADU KARA, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE, KTTAYAM 2. K.P.PHILIPOSE, 62, S/O.PHILIPOSE, KODINJIVAYALIL HOUSE,ERICADU PUTHUPPALLY 3. THOMAS PUNNEN @ JOY 72 YEARS S/O.ABRAHAM PUNNEN, KANJIRAPPALLIL OF ERICADU, PUTHUPPALY, KOTTAYAM 4. GEORGE KURIAN, KADIAMTHURUTHY OF ERICADU, PUTHUPPALLY 5. K.I.SUDHAKARAN, 55 YEARS KODINJAVAYALIL, ERICADU, PUTHUPPALLY. 6. C.C.GEORGEKUTTY, 41 YEARS CHAKAMPUZHAYIL, ANICADU VILLAGE KOTTAYAM BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.18886 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 24th June, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.700 of 2005, on the file of Munsiff Court, Kottayam. Respondents are the defendants. The judgment in C.M.A.No.28/2006 filed by the petitioners challenging the order granting temporary injunction passed by the trial court was challenged by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.11186 of 2008. Under Ext.P1 judgment, this Court directed the trial court to expedite and dispose the suit, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of re-opening of the court, after summer holidays. This Court also directed the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the case. As directed, trial court proceeded with recording the evidence. 2. When the plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.1484 of 2008 & 1188 of 2008 , trial court did not entertain the petitions for the reason that this Court has already fixed a time limit under Ext.P1 judgment. This W.P.(C) No.18886/2008 2 petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for enlarging the time fixed in Ext.P1 judgment, as well as to issue necessary direction to the Munsiff to permit petitioners to adduce evidence. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 4. Ext.P1 judgment itself shows that this Court found that the subject matter to be resolved involve intricate questions on account of the dispute regarding the alleged pollution of water. The fact that this Court directed to dispose the suit expeditiously, within a time frame, does not mean that court shall shut out the evidence, which will be necessary to prove the case of either parties. As it is submitted that I.A.Nos. 1484 of 2008 & 1188 of 2008 are not being entertained by the trial court on the ground that this Court has fixed a time limit, it is made clear that directions in Ext.P1 to dispose the suit within two months from the date of re-opening of the court, shall not operate as a direction not to permit parties to adduce evidence. The Munsiff is directed to consider the application on merits and permit the W.P.(C) No.18886/2008 3 parties to adduce evidence which are relevant and necessary to prove the case. The writ petition is disposed accordingly. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.