IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 2788 of 2001()
1. KOODATHUMKANDY VALSALA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KODDATHUMKANDY GANGADEVI
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :19/01/2007
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
C.R.P.NO. 2788/01 &
C.R.P.NO.2784 OF 2001
-------------------------
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF JANUARY, 2007
ORDER
Petitioner is plaintiff and respondents defendants in O.S.14/97
on the file of Munsiff Court, Quilandy. O.S.14/97 was filed by now
deceased Radha through her sister as next friend to set aside the
exchange deed 2939/96 of SRO Chemancheri and for partition of plaint
schedule property. When the suit was pending, Radha died. The next
friend, her sister was impleaded as supplemental plaintiff and the suit
was continued. When evidence was partly recorded, petitioner filed
I.A.530/01 and 531/01, applications to examine the doctor contending
that the doctor had treated deceased Radha for mental illness. Under
common order dated, 25.6.01, learned Sub Judge dismissed the
application. These revisions are filed challenging the said common
order. Subsequent to the filing of revisions, suit was dismissed for
default and was finally restored to file as per order in I.A.765/01 on
5.6.04.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and respondents
were heard.
3. Arguments of learned Counsel appearing for petitioner was
C.R.P.2788/01 & 2784/01 2
that evidence of the doctor is relevant and necessary to prove the
plaint claim and therefore learned Sub Judge should have permitted
petitioner to examine the doctor.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent argued that
when PW1 was examined, she was cross examined with regard to
the treatment allegedly given to Radha and she has no case that the
doctor sought to be examined treated Radha and in such
circumstances there is no necessity to examine the doctor and
learned Sub Judge rightly dismissed the application.
5. On hearing learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and
respondent, I do not find any reason to shut out the evidence and
deny permission to petitioner to adduce necessary and relevant
evidence in support of the case. Question whether the doctor, who is
sought to be summoned and examined, had treated Radha is to be
decided by learned Sub Judge on the evidence. Anticipating the
evidence, it is not proper to deny opportunity to petitioner to
examine the witness. In such circumstances, revisions are allowed.
The common order is set aside. I.A.530/01 and 531/01 stand
allowed and petitioner is permitted to examine the witness as sought
for.
Learned Sub Judge is directed to complete the examination of
C.R.P.2788/01 & 2784/01 3
witnesses and dispose the suit as expeditiously as possible and in
any event within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this
order.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,JUDGE
Acd