Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Sujeth.P.S vs C.S.Ramesh on 1 December, 2016

Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque

Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                      PRESENT:

                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

               TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/25TH MAGHA, 1938

                                            OP(C).No. 47 of 2017 (O)
                                                 -------------------------
  I.A.NO.950/2016 IN OS.NO.178/2010 OF SUB COURT, KATTAPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT
                                                    -------------------------


PETITIONER/DEFENDANT IN IA.NO.950/16 IN OS.178/10 OF SUB COURT,KATTAPANA :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                SUJETH.P.S.,
                AGED 49 YEARS, S/O LATE V.K.SREDHARAN,
                PUTHENPURAIKKAL, THRIKANARVATTAM DESOM,
                ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
                KOCHI-18


                     BY ADVS.SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY
                                   SRI.NIXON PAUL

RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF IN IA.NO.950/16 IN OS.178/10 OF SUB COURT,KATTAPANA :
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                      C.S.RAMESH,
                     AGED 61 YEARS, S/O LATE SREEDAR,
                     SANTHINIKATHAN HOUSE, ASHOKAPURAM KARA,
                     ALUVA VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ENAKULAM DISTRICT.


                      BY SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA), SENIOR ADVOCATE
                          ADVS. SRI.MANU GEORGE KURUVILLA
                                   SRI.AMAL GEORGE


            THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
            ON 14-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
            THE FOLLOWING:




sts

OP(C).No. 47 of 2017 (O)
-------------------------------------

                                            APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------


EXHIBIT P1          TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.950/16 IN OS NO.178/2010

EXHIBIT P2          TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN IA NO.950/16 IN OS NO.178/2010
                     DATED 01-12-2016

EXHIBIT P3          THE TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 26-11-2016
                     PRODUCED IN OS NO.178/2010

EXHIBIT P4          THE RUE COPY OF THE PROOF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE POWER OF
                    ATTORNEY, ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF IN OS NO.178/2010

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------------------------

EXHIBIT R1(A) COPY OF THE PROCEEDING IN OS 178 OF 2010 DOWNLOADED FROM
                      THE E-COURT SERVICES WEBSITE COVERING THE PERIOD
                      18/10/2012 TO 10/01/2017.

EXHIBIT R1(B) COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMERY ISSUED BY CMC, VELLORE.

EXHIBIT R1(C) COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE RAJAGIRI HOSPITAL
                       ALUVA DATED 07/02/2017.




                                                 /TRUE COPY/


                                                 P.S.TO JUDGE




sts



                   A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
                 =========================
                       O.P.(C).No.47/2017
                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Dated this the 14th day of February, 2017


                          J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.178 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Kattappana. He approached this court challenging an order allowing the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff to be examined as a witness. The power of the attorney holder is none other than the wife of the plaintiff. This court is of the view that the petitioner cannot question a witness being examined on the side of the plaintiff. The competency and relevancy is a matter to be addressed at the time of trial. Whether the evidence of the plaintiff is sufficient or not is a matter to be considered at the time of trial. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to question such course adopted by the plaintiff to examine the power of attorney holder as a witness. Therefore the original petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ms