Kerala High Court
Sait Nagjee Purushotham And Company vs Vimalabhai Prabhulal on 11 August, 2008
Bench: P.R.Raman, T.R.Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21477 of 2008(F)
1. SAIT NAGJEE PURUSHOTHAM AND COMPANY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VIMALABHAI PRABHULAL, W/O.PRABHULAL
... Respondent
2. VIPINCHANDRA PRABHULA,
3. MRS.MADHUR VIPIN MEHTA,
4. PRANAV VIPIN MEHTA,
5. MALAY VIPIN MEHTA,
6. NALINCHANDRA PRABHULAL ALIA
7. MRS.KRISHNA NALIN MEHTA,
8. NIRAV NALIN METHA,
9. DILIPKUMAR PRABHULAL,
10. MRS.KALPANA DILIP MEHTA,
11. MEHUL DILIP MEHTA,
12. M/S. SUNTEX PRIVATE LIMITED,
13. K.P. SYED KASIM,
14. M/S. SAIT NAGJEE PURUSHOTHAM AND
For Petitioner :SRI.V.M.KURIAN
For Respondent :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :11/08/2008
O R D E R
P.R.RAMAN &
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JJ.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C)NO.21477 OF 2008
--------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of August,2008
JUDGMENT
Raman,J.
Notice to the 4th respondent returned with endorsement "left". Even though service of notice to some of the respondents is not complete, Sri G.Sreekumar, who have already entered appearance for some of the respondents, submits that he takes notice on behalf of the remaining respondents in this case. The same is recorded. Service is complete.
2. This is a writ petition challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode. Petitioner is a tenant of the building belonging to the respondents/landlords. The rent control petition was eventually allowed and the petitioner was ordered to be evicted and subsequently, he was evicted. He filed an application seeking to re-enter into the property. As per Ext.P3 order, the petitioner sought to reopen the evidence and recall the -2- WP(C).No.21477/2008 witness in the original case, R.C.P.No.35/2007. Evidence commenced on 18/6/2008. The court below dismissed the application for re-opening the evidence on the ground that the application is filed only with an intention to protract the proceedings.
3. We have heard both sides.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that an opportunity could be given to the petitioner so that there may not be further delay in the completion of the proceedings. In view of the above submission, we allow the writ petition quashing Ext.P3. We direct that the court below will re-consider the matter permitting the petitioner to recall the witness Dws.1 and 2 for further examination and dispose of the case expeditiously.
P.R.RAMAN, Judge.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge.
kcv.