IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15152 of 2010(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23/03/2010 IN IA.1348,1368,1369/2010 IN OS.41/1998 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOZHIKODE-I .................... PETITIONER/ DEFENDANT ------------------------ MOOLAMVELLY KEEZHALATH UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.JANAKI AMMA, EDAKKAD AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON SRI.M.V.ANANDAN RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF ------------------------ THAYYIL PANKAJAVALLY AMMA, W/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, KARKKAYIL HOUSE, POST EDAKKADU, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.15152 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 18th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is to quash Exts.P3, P5 and P7 orders on I.A.Nos.1348 of 2010, 1368 of 2010 and 1369 of 2010 in O.S.No.41 of 1998 of the court of learned Principal Munsiff-I, Kozhikode. That was a suit originally filed for decree of prohibitory injunction, later amended as one for recovery of possession of the suit property. There was an ex parte decree passed in favour of the respondent which was appealed by the petitioner in A.S.No.157 of 2008. Learned District Judge while setting aside the decree directed disposal of the suit before 18-08- 2008. Thereafter petitioner/defendant filed documents to prove his contentions and an application was filed to receive the documents which ended in dismissal for the reason of delay. That order was challenged in W.P.C.No.309 of 2008. That petition was allowed on terms of cost. Thereafter there was W.P.C.No.10602 of 2009 to quash dismissal of the application for removal of the case from the list. That writ petition also was allowed but the parties were cautioned not to seek unnecessary adjournment and they were directed to cooperate with the trial of the case and early W.P.C.No.15152 of 2010 : 2 : disposal. Then came W.P.C.No.1353 of 2010 where there was direction to dispose of the suit before the summer vacation. Parties started adducing evidence in the case and some witnesses were examined. Petitioner says that on the day the witnesses were to be cross examined, mother of the counsel of petitioner in the trial court fell ill, was hospitalised and the counsel therefore had to abruptly leave the court. Thereon, learned Munsiff recorded “No Cross”. For reopening the case and to recall the witnesses for examination petitioner filed Exts.P2, P4 and P6. Those applications were dismissed by the learned Munsiff by Exts.P3, P5 and P7 which are impugned in this writ petition. Learned counsel submitted that it was on the pressure of circumstances that mother of counsel falling ill and being hospitalised that counsel had to withdraw from the court. The counsel is ready to proceed with the trial of the case and in the circumstances, an opportunity is requested by the learned counsel. Learned counsel for respondent contended that at every stage of the proceeding attempt has been made by the petitioner to protect and prolong the trial in spite direction for expeditious disposal and even time bound disposal learned Munsiff was not able to comply with the direction. 2. I do not find reason to think that the ground stated by W.P.C.No.15152 of 2010 : 3 : the petitioner for his counsel being unable to continue with examination of the witnesses is false. One other reason for learned Munsiff rejecting the applications is the direction of this court for expeditious or even time bound disposal of the case. Having regard to the circumstances I am inclined to give petitioner an opportunity to contest the case. Learned counsel has undertaken before me that no further request for adjournment will be made on behalf of the petitioner and that if at all counsel concerned has any difficulty in appearing in court and conducting trial of the case petitioner will make alternative arrangements for the conduct of the case. The submission of learned counsel is recorded and accepted. Resultantly the writ petition is allowed, Exts.P3, P5 and P7 orders are set aside and Exts.P2, P4 and P6 will stand allowed. Petitioner will get an opportunity for cross examination of witnesses as prayed for in the applications as referred above and adduce evidence on his side. I direct the learned Munsiff to dispose of the suit within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. It is also directed that parties shall not ask for further adjournment of the case on any ground and if at all any inconvenience comes in the way of the counsel concerned W.P.C.No.15152 of 2010 : 4 : conducting the case they shall make alternative arrangements for conduct of the case and on the ground of inconvenience of the counsel there shall not be any request for adjournment of the case. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-