Kerala High Court
Ruby John vs P.L. Paul on 28 February, 2019
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019/9TH PHALGUNA, 1940
O.P.(C)No.487 of 2019
(AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.No.195/2019 IN
O.S.No.231/2017 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOCHI)
PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFF:
1 RUBY JOHN, AGED 75 YEARS,
D/O LATE LONAPPAN,
CHOLAKKATTU HOUSE,
ARAKKAAPARAMBU ROAD,
PANDIKUDY-2, THOPPUMPADY P.O.,
KOCHI-682 005.
2 LEELA JOSE, AGED 71 YEARS,
W/O JOSE THOMAS, KOKKAN HOUSE,
TRICHUR-680 009.
3 MARYKUTTY RAPHEL, AGED 69 YEARS,
D/O LONAPPAN, PALLIPPURAM HOUSE,
OLLUKKARA, THRISSUR-680 009.
4 P.L. JOHN, AGED 58 YEARS
S/O LONAPPAN, PALLIPPURAM HOUSE,
H.NO.6/1617, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682 002.
5 THANKAMMA PAUL, AGED 60 YEARS,
D/O LONAPPAN, C-701, BALAJI TOWER,
NERUL WEST, NAVI MUMBAI-6.
BY ADVS.
SRI.E.D.GEORGE
KUM.LINU G. NATH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 P.L. PAUL, AGED 62 YEARS,
S/O LONAPPAN, PALLIPPURAM HOUSE, H.NO.6/1617,
MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682 002.
2 P.L. JOSE, AGED 64 YEARS,
S/O LONAPPAN, PALLIPPURAM HOUSE, H.NO.6/62,
CHEROOR, THRISSUR-680 008.
O.P.(C)No.487 of 2019
2
BY ADV. SRI.ANIL THOMAS (MELEMALAYIL)
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P.(C)No.487 of 2019
3
JUDGMENT
An order rejecting the request of the petitioners to examine a witness, is under challenge in this original petition.
The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit. It appears that the dispute involved in the suit essentially centers round a release deed and its execution.
The release deed contains two witnesses. The plaintiffs-petitioners cited them as witnesses. In 16.1.2019, to which date the case was posted for examination of the witnesses, only one of the witnesses could not present. Then the counsel for the defendant pointed out that both the witnesses are to be examined on the same date, since the nature of questions to be put to the witnesses are the same. It appears that the counsel appearing for the plaintiff submitted O.P.(C)No.487 of 2019 4 that, he intends to examine only one of the witnesses to the release deed. He gave up the other witnesses and made such an endorsement.
However, thereafter the plaintiffs filed an application seeking permission of the court to examine the said witnesses who was given up. The court below found that since the said witness was already given up, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to examine the said witness.
I am of the opinion that, since the dispute centers round a release deed and the witness sought to be examined is one of the witnesses to the document, though the plaintiffs initially thought it unnecessary to examine the said witnesses, that by itself could not stand in the way of them be given an opportunity to examine the witness. The evidentiary value of the evidence of such witness, in the particular back ground, is something which could be examined later. O.P.(C)No.487 of 2019 5
In the said circumstances, the order dated 7.2.2019 impugned in this original petition is set aside and the application is allowed.
The original petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN JUDGE ss O.P.(C)No.487 of 2019 6 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION I.A.195/2019 IN O.S.231/2017 FILE BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOCHI.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN I.A.195/2019 IN O.S.231/2017 FILE BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOCHI.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.2.2019 I.A.NoS.193/2019, 194/2019 AND 195/2019 IN O.S.231/2017 FILE BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOCHI.