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/-