IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2255 of 2009(R)
1. DR.SATHYENDRAN.T.C., 11/2202, R.K.V.ROAD
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DISTRICT
... Respondent
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSTP.PULAMON,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.R.RAJESH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :21/01/2009
O R D E R
K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------------------
W. P. C. No.2255 of 2009
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the claimant in
LAR.112/05 on the file of the Sub Court,
Attingal which is being jointly tried with
LAR. Nos.114/05 and 115/05. It is the case of
the petitioner that when summons was taken out
to the witnesses it was returned stating that
witness Nos.1 and 2 could not be found and
that therefore, petitioner filed I.A.2167/08
(Ext.P6) to issue summons to witness Nos.1 and
2 and also to accept additional witness
schedule but the court below vide Ext.P7 order
dt.11/12/08 dismissed the same. The petitioner
therefore, prays that direction be issued to
the court below to allow Ext.P6 petition
quashing Ext.P7 order.
W. P. C. No.2255 of 2009 -2-
2. The court below vide Ext.P7 order has
observed that two official witnesses one
Special Tahsildar and an Assistant Executive
Engineer of K.S.T.P were already examined on
application of the claimant, but no relevant
materials could be brought out in the evidence
of those witnesses; that what the claimant
wants now is to examine another Special
Tahsildar without stating the points to be
proved that therefore, the additional witness
schedule is not accepted and however, that if
the counsel wants to get any private person
examined he can produce them or take summons
to them “by party” after closing of evidence
of the respondents which has already
commenced. This shows that the court has made
a very lenient approach in permitting the
petitioner to adduce evidence though summons
W. P. C. No.2255 of 2009 -3-
was refused to be issued afresh to the
witnesses to whom summons issued were returned
unserved.
3. It is submitted that the LAR is one
included in the Special List. Exts.P3 and P4
depositions of two witnesses produced before
court by the petitioner does not show the date
on which they were examined. Obviously they
were being examined prior to 06/12/08 on which
day was Ext.P5 filed. Ext.P2 is dt.01/09/08.
This shows that in September or October, 2008
the trial of the LAR started. However, we are
in January, 2009. The court below has given
permission to the petitioner to produce those
witnesses and to examine them if he wants. In
a suit or other proceeding which is already
listed, parties cannot protract the trial by
taking steps repeatedly like this after trial
W. P. C. No.2255 of 2009 -4-
has started disabling the court in disposing
of the proceedings before it. I see no merit
in this Writ Petition and this Writ Petition
is dismissed.
K.P.BALACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
kns/-