IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2009 / 22ND ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28481 of 2009(O) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- BABU SURESH.T.V., S/O.CHERIYAMBU.M., MADAKKAL, UDUMBUMTHALA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE KANNUR DISTRICT CO-OP.BANK LTD. KANNUR REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER HEAD OFFICE, P.B.NO.35, KANNUR. 2. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PAYYANNUR BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, PAYYANNUR. 3. THE SHORNUR CO-OP.URBAN BANK LTD., NO.F.1639, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SHORNUR. BY ADV.MR. R.S.KALKURA FOR R2. MR.P.NARAYANAN FOR R1. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.28481 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To set aside Exhibit P5, being improper and unjust. ii) To allow Exhibit P3. iii) To declare that Exhibit P5 is passed without application of judicious mind.” 2. Petitioner is the third defendant in O.S.No.19 of 2007 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Payyannur. Suit is one for money, and the first respondent is the plaintiff and the other respondents co- defendants along with the petitioner. A draft which was drawn from the account of the petitioner and encashed from the plaintiff bank was later found to be forged, and on detection of the fraud the suit was instituted by the bank against the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 for the loss suffered due to the forgery committed. The present petitioner/second defendant in his written statement among other contentions contended that the forgery was committed by one Vijayan and a criminal case had been registered against him in respect of several forgeries so committed. When the W.P.(C).No.28481 of 2009 - O 2 case came up in the list for trial petitioner moved an application for summoning the police officer, who is stated to be conducting the investigation over the crime registered against the aforesaid Vijayan, with the crime records. The court below dismissed that application. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The case came up in the special list for trial on 7.10.2009. It seems the petitioner/second defendant filed the application for summoning his witness, the police officer who investigated the crime registered against one Vijayan as contended in his written statement, the day before the date scheduled for trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence of the plaintiff is not over and even after commencement of the trial on the request of the plaintiff additional witnesses are allowed to be summoned. From the submissions made it is also noticed that the investigation of the crime which is canvassed by the petitioner to substantiate his defence raised in the written statement has not been completed. Whatever that be, having regard to the submissions made and the facts and circumstances presented I W.P.(C).No.28481 of 2009 - O 3 direct the court below to consider the request of the petitioner/second defendant afresh after recording the evidence of the petitioner provided he offers himself as a witness. I make it clear I am not expressing any opinion on the merit of the application moved by the petitioner. The court below may form its own opinion whether the examination of the investigating officer when the investigation is not complete can be allowed and also whether production of the copies of the crime records after collection would be sufficient rather than the examination of the witness sought for by the petitioner. All these matters are to be considered by the court and appropriate orders to be passed, but, after the examination of the petitioner. Subject to the above observations, writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-