IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 9833 of 2010(O) ------------------------- O.S.NO.292/2007 OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.D.GEORGE, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.DAVID, THENGANAL VEETTIL, VALANPOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.T.JESTIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.M.JIGIMON, S/O.MATHEW, KODAKALIL HOUSE, THENGODU, OONNUKAL, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.9833/2010 ORDER ON IA NO.6065/2010 IN WP(C) NO.9833/2010 DISMISSED 21.05.20100 Sd/-THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF IA NO.186/2010 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO //TRUE COPY// THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.9833 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010. JUDGMENT Though a copy of the impugned order is not produced in this proceeding since according to the learned counsel copy has not been received, I dispose of this Writ Petition on the facts admitted by counsel on both sides. Petitioner is plaintiff in O.S.No.292 of 2007 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Perumbavoor. That is a suit for damages for malicious prosecution. Examination of petitioner as PW1 was over. At that stage, he filed a witness schedule with intent to examine the Deputy Superintendent of Police who was then working in the Narcotic Cell, Ernakulam as his witness and summons was issued to that officer in that address. Summons could not be served as by then the witness was transferred to Thiruvananthapuram and the serving officer submitted a report in the court below to that effect. Thereon petitioner wanted summons to be taken to the witness in the transferred post. That request was not allowed by the learned Sub Judge and the impugned order was passed. Impugned order is extracted in paragraph No.4 of the Writ Petition that “summons returned stating that he is not working in the station. Plaintiff's evidence closed for defence evidence.” I find no reason why, the court below having decided to issue summons to the witness, has declined to issue fresh summons in the new WP(C) No.9833/2010 2 address. In the circumstances the order under challenge is set aside and the case will stand reopened for further evidence of petitioner/plaintiff. He shall take steps to issue summons to the witness in his present address. Writ Petition is allowed as above. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks