IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26993 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.50/2007 of SUB COURT,KATTAPPANA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.N.SUKUMARAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.PANICKER, VETTICKAL HOUSE, KATTAPPANA KARA, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMAR SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- P.PANDYAN, S/O.PACHUPILLAI, PACHUPILLAIKUDY HOUSE, ANNIYARTHOLU KARA, PAMPADUMPARA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.26993 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs: i. to call for the records which led to the issuance of Exts.P2 and P5 and to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the same; ii. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the court below to consider and pass orders on Exts.P1 and P3. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.50 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Kattappana, which was one for recovery of money based on a cheque. After the entire evidence was recorded in the case, petitioner moved two applications, one WPC.26993/09 2 for issue of a court certificate to collect some documents from the Village Office, and the other for examining one more witness to prove the money transaction. Both the petitions were dismissed by the learned Sub Judge. Ext.P2 is the copy of the order passed by the learned Sub Judge declining the request for issuing the certificate and Ext.P5, a copy of the order turning down the request for examining additional witness. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff confined the challenge against the orders to the observations made by the learned Sub Judge in Exts.P2 and P5 orders, that the respondent/defendant had disputed the issue of the cheque. On the contrary, according to the counsel, the respondent in his written statement admitted the issue of the cheque, but, disputed the money transaction. Observations made as aforesaid in Exts.P2 and P5, according to the counsel, are likely to cause injury to the petitioner/plaintiff in the final disposal of the suit. I do not want to got into the correctness or merit of the statement canvassed by the learned counsel, but, I make it clear that whatever be the observations made by the court in the WPC.26993/09 3 interlocutory applications, needless to point out, such observations will not have any bearing or reflection in the final disposal of the suit, which has to be disposed on the evidence let in the case. The learned Sub Judge is directed to dispose the suit on the basis of the evidence let in the case and in accordance with law untrammelled by any of the observations made in Exts.P2 and P5 orders. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp