IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2010 / 2ND MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2264 of 2010(O) ------------------------- {OP(ELE.)196/2002 OF THE ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I, MAVELIKKARA} .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- VINOD.V. ,S/O.VASU, AGED 40 YEARS KALATHUR VEETTIL,MAHADEVIKKAD MURI, KARTHIKAPPALLY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM REP BY ITS MANAGER KAYAMKULAM TRANSMISSION SYSTEM,KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV.SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.2264 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the claimant in O.P.(Ele) No.196/02 on the file of the Additional District Judge- I, Mavelikkara. 2. The above original petition has been filed seeking enhanced compensation from the respondent Power Grid Corporation of India Limited for the electric line drawn through his property. 3. Previously, the petition was disposed of by the court below, but the quantum of compensation was challenged by the respondent before this court and the case was remitted for fresh consideration. 4. Pursuant to such remission, additional evidence was taken and the case was posted for hearing. But the petitioner applied for re-opening of the evidence to admit a judgment passed in an LAR W.P.(C).No.2264 of 2010 :: 2 :: case (L.A.R.No.87/92 of the Sub Court, Mavelikkara) in respect of his claim. The court below declined his prayer by Ext.P3. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P3 is challenged in this writ petition. 5. The respondent has appeared and I heard counsel on both sides. 6. Having heard counsel on both sides and taking note of the fact that normally the parties will get an opportunity to lead evidence in support of their case only in the trial court, of course, subject to exceptions, it is not proper to shut out the evidence of a party. True, there are some laches on the part of the claimant in the present case to produce the document, which is stated to be relevant for substantiating his claim. Still, I find, some indulgence can be shown for receiving that document. Ext.P3 is, therefore, quashed. W.P.(C).No.2264 of 2010 :: 3 :: 7. There will be a direction to the court below to receive the document which is stated to be a judgment dated 11.3.1999 in L.A.R.No.87/92 of the Sub Court, Mavelikkara, as additional evidence, provided that document is produced within 10 days from the date of this judgment. The relevancy of the merit of the judgment is left open to be considered by the court below. 8. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner on usual terms and send a copy to the court concerned forthwith. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE SK/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.