IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH SATURDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP(C).No. 3510 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------- [OS.NO.810/2009 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM] .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. THIRUVALLAM SHIVARAJAN,NAMITHA NIVAS, VANDITHADAM,VELLAYANI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. R.KOMALAN NAIR,LIVA, PANGAPPARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, SASTHAVILAKAM SSRA-1, THIRUVALLAM P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. JAYSAMMA MUTHEDAM, VYDHYUTHY BHAVAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,PATTOM. 5. M.S.ANILKUMAR, POOVACHAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. M.V.RAVEENDRAN, PRESENT VICE PRESIDENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT VOLLEY BALL ASSOCIATION. 7. V.A.RAHIM, PRESENT JOINT SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT VOLLEY BALL ASSOCIATION. 8. D.SREEKANTAN NAIR- PRESENT JOINT SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT VOLLEY BALL ASSOCIATION 9. GIRIJA, PRESENT JOINT SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT VOLLEY BALL ASSOCIATION. BY ADVS. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, SMT.P.V.PARVATHI, SMT.REENA THOMAS, SRI.L.RAM MOHAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. A.SURESHKUMAR, S/O.APPUKUTTAN NAIR, "SARANYA"(KALPAKA),MANKUZHY, PANGAPPARA P.O.,KARIAVATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 581. 2. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT VOLLEYBALL ASSOCIATION,SASTHAM VILAKATHE VEEDU, THIRUVALLAM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - 695 027. 3. K.MADHUSOODANAN NAIR, ARAMAM,MRA-243,AYODYA NAGAR,MANIKANDESWARAM P.O, PEROORKADA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 017. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.ANANDA KRISHNAN, SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.(C).NO.3510/2011-O: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 810/2009 OF THE ADDL.MUNSIFF'S COURT,R.C.C.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS IN OS 810/2009 OF THE ADDL.MUNSIFF'S COURT,R.C.C.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE IA 7177/09 IN OS 810/2009 OF THE ADDL.MUNSIFF'S COURT,R.C.C.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P3(A): COPY OF REVIEW PETITION FILED AS IA 7815/2011. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE IA 7997/2011 FILED IN OS 810/2009. EXT.P4(A): COPY OF THE IA 7998/2011 FILED IN OS 810/2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.3510 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT Notice to the 3rd respondent is dispensed with in view of submission and request made by learned counsel for petitioners. 2. Petitioners are defendants 3 to 8 and 10 to 12 in O.S.No.810 of 2009 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram. 1st respondent filed that suit against petitioners, respondents 2 and 3 and 9th defendant (who later expired) for a declaration that the election conducted by petitioners are null and void and for a direction to conduct fresh election. Petitioners filed Ext.P2, written statement. The matter went for evidence. 1st respondent filed proof affidavit in August, 2011. Since he was not cross- examined, evidence of 1st respondent was closed. Petitioners filed applications to re-open the case and for permission to cross-examine the 1st respondent. That request was allowed on payment of cost of `6,000/-. Petitioners filed application for review contending that cost awarded is exorbitant. That application was dismissed. It is stated that on the following day, petitioners tendered the sum of `6,000/- to the counsel for 1st respondent but, he did not receive it. Hence on the same day petitioners filed Exts.P4 and P4(a), applications to deposit the amount and enlarge time for deposit. I am told that those applications are not disposed of. But, at the same time the court below OP(C)No.3510/2011 2 posted the case for judgment on 29.10.2011. Hence this Original Petition seeking a direction to the learned Additional Munsiff to dispose of Exts.P4 and P4(a), applications. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that in view of the nature of contentions raised, petitioners ought have been given an opportunity to cross-examine PW1. I have heard learned counsel for 1st respondent as well. 4. Assuming that the application for review was dismissed, learned Additional Munsiff ought have considered Exts.P4 and P4(a), applications where petitioners offered their willingness to deposit the amount and sought enlargement of time for such deposit. It is without doing that, learned Munsiff has taken the case for disposal. As far as possible the parties must be given opportunity to contest the case and the decision must be on merit. 5. Having regard to the circumstances I am inclined to issue the direction prayed for. Resultantly this Original Petition is allowed. Learned Munsiff is directed to dispose of Exts.P4 and P4(a), applications in the light of the facts, circumstances and observations made above before the suit itself is disposed of. In case the decisions on Exts.P4 and P4(a), applications are adverse to the petitioners, they OP(C)No.3510/2011 3 shall be issued a copy of the order as early as possible if applied for, on usual terms and the disposal of the case shall stand adjourned to a day after one week from the date notified for delivery of copy of the order. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks