IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP(C).No. 2706 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------- OS.787/2008 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... PETITIONER ------------------ RAJALEKSHMI, D/O.PRASANNA KUMARI, VELATTIL PUTHEN VEEDU, PEDIKATTU MURI, CHERUVAKKAL VILLAGE, MEDICAL COLLEGE (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SRI.G.BIJU. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. A. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.ALWAR REDDIAR, ASWINI, T.C.2/582(2), RAJIV GANDHI LANE, MEDICAL COLLEGE (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. C. VELLAISAMY, S/O.CHINNAYYAN, T.C.2/537, KAVITHA, MADATHUVILA LANE, MEDICAL COLLEGE (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR. R3 BY SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs OP(C).No. 2706 of 2011(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.787/2008. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S. NO.787/2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE AMENDMENT PETITION FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE I.A. NO.6180/2011 DATED 08/08/2011 IN O.S. NO.787/2008. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE I.A. NO.6313/2011 IN O.S. NO.787/2008. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO.739/2008 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 575/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.2706 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 15th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T The first defendant in O.S. No.787 of 2008 of the court of learned Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram is the petitioner before me challenging Ext.P9, order dismissing Ext.P6, application to cross- examine P.W.1. Initially it was first respondent who filed the suit for prohibitory and mandatory injunction. Case was listed for trial on 10.08.2011. Two days before that the second respondent, claiming to be a co-owner of the property filed application for his impleadment as additional plaintiff. That application came up for hearing on 10.08.2011. Petitioner requested time to file objection. But that was not allowed, application was allowed and the second respondent was impleaded as additional plaintiff. Same day, the second respondent was examined as P.W.1. Petitioner filed Ext.P6, application requesting time to cross- examine P.W.1. That was not allowed. Case was posted on 12.08.2011. Without granting further time Ext.P9, order was passed dismissing Ext.P6, application. It is submitted by learned counsel that it was in the circumstances stated above and since counsel was laid up that P.W.1 could not be cross-examined. 2. I have heard learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 O.P(C) No.2706 of 2011 -: 2 :- as well. 3. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, I am inclined to think that petitioner could be given opportunity to cross-examine P.W.1. It is pointed out by learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 that the Advocate Commissioner was examined as P.W.2 on 16.08.2011 but in spite of presence of counsel for petitioner, P.W.2 was not cross-examined. I need not go into that question in this proceeding since the prayer in this petition is only to set aside Ext.P9, order dismissing Ext.P6, application where the request was for permission to cross- examine P.W.1. In the view I have taken Ext.P9, order is liable to be set aside. Original Petition is allowed. Exhibit P9, order is set aside and Ext.P6, application will stand allowed. Petitioner shall be given opportunity to cross-examine PW.1. Interlocutory Application No.18292 of 2011 will stand allowed. HOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv