Surjy M.Tharakan vs Thomas on 18 December, 2009

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Surjy M.Tharakan vs Thomas on 18 December, 2009

Bench: S.S.Satheesachandran

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 4384 of 2009(V)


1. SURJY M.THARAKAN, AGED 26 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THOMAS, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ALIAS, S/O.THOMAS,

3. T.T.BABU, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 42 YEARS,

4. SOMAN, S/O.MYLAN, AGED 36 YEARS,

5. BABY M.MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 46 YEARS

6. GOPI, S/O.UNNI, KALLELI HOUSE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

 Dated :18/12/2009

 O R D E R
                    S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
                   -----------------------------------
                    W.P.(C).No.4384 of 2009 - O
                    ---------------------------------
             Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009

                            J U D G M E N T

Writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"To set aside Exhibit P8 and direct the court below to consider the matter afresh."

2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.131 of 2005 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor. Suit is one of declaration and injunction and the respondents are the defendants. The main dispute involved in the suit related to a way and the contesting respondents disputed the suit claim by filing written statement. Petitioner/plaintiff filed Ext.P3 application to serve interrogatories on the fifth defendant which was allowed by the court. Not being satisfied with the answers given by the fifth defendant to the interrogatories petitioner/plaintiff filed an application for furnishing better particulars and in default thereof to strike out the defence of the fifth defendant. The learned Munsiff after hearing both sides dismissed that application moved by the plaintiff vide Ext.P8 order. Propriety and correctness of W.P.(C).No.4384 of 2009 - O 2 Ext.P8 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Notice was given to the respondents, but, after accepting notice they have not entered appearance. I heard the counsel for the petitioner.

4. Perusing Ext.P8 order with reference to other exhibits produced with the writ petition and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel, I find no interference with Ext.P8 order is called for. Ext.P3 is the copy of the petition filed by the plaintiff for serving interrogatories on the fifth defendant, which was allowed by the court. A cursory perusal of the application would show many of the questions raised by way of interrogatories are matters which come within the disputes arising for adjudication in the suit. Without referring to the interrogatories raised, it seems, the court below has mechanically allowed the application. Whatever that be, any further enquiry with reference to Ext.P3 application would only delay and protract the trial of the case. If at all there was any default on the part of the W.P.(C).No.4384 of 2009 - O 3 fifth defendant in answering any of the interrogatories of the petitioner can canvass for taking adverse inference against that defendant in the trial of the suit.

Writ petition is closed.

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE.

bkn/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court