IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 1617 of 2009(P) ------------------------- OS.215/1993 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SARADAMMA, W/O. PADMANABHA PILLAI, VADAKKE VEEDU, PATHIRIPPALLY MURI, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, P.A. RAMESH KUMAR, NANDANAM, KMRA 32, ANCHUMUKKU, MUTTADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.K.RAJESH KANNAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- BIJU PURUSHOTHAMAN, 'BINDHU', MUKARAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.P.A.AHAMMED, MR.M.SREEKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.1617/2009 P APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.215/93 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P2: COPY OF THE PETITION I.A.4588/2008 DTD. 30/09/2008. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 21/11/2008 OF THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P4: COPY OF THE PETITION I.A.4589/08 DTD. 3/09/2008. P5: COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DTD. 25/12/1962. P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 4/09/2008 IN I.A.4589/08 IN O.S.215/1993 OF THE COURT OF THE ADDL.SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.1617 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 3rd June, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: 1. That an order be passed quashing the directions in Ext.P3 to pay a cost of Rs.5000/- and quashing or expunging other observations in Ext.P3 regarding the title and title deeds of the petitioner. 2. That an order be passed directing the lower court to consider Ext.P4 petition at the time of tendering the commission report and plan detailed therein in evidence and the validity of the said documents along with the other documents produced in the case. 3. That the petitioner be granted such further reliefs as are appropriate and incidental to this Writ Petition. Petitioner is the additional second plaintiff in O.S.No.215/93 on the file of the Sub Court, Trivandrum. Suit was for declaration of title and possession, injunction and other reliefs. The 6th plaintiff moved an application for incorporating the survey number in the plaint schedule property which was omitted to be mentioned when the plaint was presented before the court. Though the defendant did not file any W.P.C.No.1617/09 - 2 - objection to that application, the learned Sub Judge passed Ext.P3 order in which it is stated unnecessary observations on the merit of the case of the plaintiff have been made over and above mulcting the plaintiff with a cost of Rs.5000/-. The plaintiff also desire to produce a commission report and plan prepared in an earlier case which, according to her has relevance in adjudicating the issues involved in the present suit to be exhibited and marked in evidence in the present case. The learned Sub Judge dismissed that application vide Ext.P6 order holding that no law has been pointed out for reception of the commission report and plan produced which was prepared 46 years ago. Impeaching the correctness of Exts.P3 and P6 orders passed by the learned Sub Judge contending that the cost imposed and observations made in Ext.P3 while allowing the amendment application are quite unwarranted, and that the rejection of the application moved for admitting the commission report and plan produced by Ext.P6 order is unsustainable and not legal, petitioner has filed the Writ Petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. From the submissions made and the facts and circumstances presented, I find, W.P.C.No.1617/09 - 3 - cost imposed by the learned Sub Judge under Ext.P5 for carrying out an innocuous amendment which is prima facie shown to be a bonafide omission on the part of the advocate who prepared the plaint was thoroughly unjustifiable. Cost imposed under Ext.P5 against the plaintiff as a precondition for allowing the amendment is liable to be set aside, and I do so. As regards the observations made under Ext.P5 with respect to the case of the plaintiff, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff is justified in contending that such observations are quite unwarranted while considering an amendment application. Similarly, the challenge raised against the dismissal of Ext.P6 application wherein the learned Sub Judge declined to receive the commission report and plan attached thereto holding that the provision of law has not been cited for admitting that document in evidence to say the least is palpably erroneous. Relevancy of that document has to be considered as and when that document is tendered in evidence and if any objection is raised by the defendant that it is not relevant, it has to be considered at that stage. Prejudging that issue at the time when the report was produced for being received in evidence holding that provision of law has not been cited thereof is clearly improper. Ext.P6 order is also liable to be set W.P.C.No.1617/09 - 4 - aside, and I do so. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the suit had been filed as early as in 1993 and it was restored twice after its dismissal for default. An early disposal of the suit by giving proper directions to the court below is urged by the counsel for the respondent to which the learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection. I direct the learned Sub Judge to give the suit top priority in hearing and to dispose the suit as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed as indicated above. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE