Ajayan vs Sudhakaran on 8 July, 2008

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Ajayan vs Sudhakaran on 8 July, 2008

Bench: M.Sasidharan Nambiar

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 20485 of 2008(L)


1. AJAYAN, AGED 41 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SUDHAKARAN, S/O.KUNJAYYAPPAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. P.DEVISAROJAM, W/O.NARAYANAN,

3. CHANDRIKA BALAN

4. BAIJU

5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.G.SURESH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :08/07/2008

 O R D E R
                   M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
                     ...........................................
                    WP(C).No. 20485                OF 2008
                     ............................................
           DATED THIS THE             8th      DAY OF JULY, 2008

                                JUDGMENT

This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for a direction to to Sub Judge, Thrissur to accept Ext.P2 written statement filed by the petitioner and also to pass appropriate order in Ext.P3 and P6 and not to proceed with the suit till the disposal of the petitions.

2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. The allegation in the writ petition is that plaintiff in that suit informed petitioner that he is being impleaded in the suit as a formal party and he will engage a counsel and petitioner obliged the plaintiff and agreed to be a formal party and accepted the counsel suggested by the plaintiff and entrusted him his vakalath with instructions to file written statement and did not verify whether written statement was filed and later the counsel informed that he is stopping practice and asked petitioner to take back the records and thereafter petitioner engaged a counsel and took back file from the original counsel and entrusted it to the present counsel and then petitioner was informed that a written statement was not filed and in such WP(C) 20485/2008 2 circumstances, petitioner filed Ext.P2 written statement along with Ext.P3 petition to receive the same along with Ext.P6 petition to remove the suit from the special list and Ext.P5 petition to receive the documents produced under Ext.P4 list. It was contended that in the circumstances of the case, learned Sub Judge is to be directed to receive the written statement and not to proceed with the suit till orders are passed in Ext.P3 to P6 applications.

3. Though learned counsel appearing for petitioner vehemently argued that trial court is to be directed not to proceed with the trial, on hearing the learned counsel, I am not inclined to grant the said relief. As petitioner has filed Ext.P3 petition to receive Ext.P2 written statement, learned Sub Judge is directed to pass appropriate order in Ext.P3 petition in accordance with law immediately. Similarly, if the written statement is to be received as sought for in Ext.P3, learned Sub Judge has to pass appropriate order in Ext.P5 petition.

Writ petition is disposed accordingly.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court