IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9398 of 2010(O)
1. JOSE, S/O.LUKA, AGED 53 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. T.J.SEBASTIAN, CHITTAYAKKATTU
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR,
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.G.ARUN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :19/03/2010
O R D E R
P. BHAVADASAN, J.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
W.P.(C) No. 9398 of 2010
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010
JUDGMENT
In this writ petition Ext.P3 order is assailed.
2. The petitioners instituted O.S. No.19 of 2004 before
the Munsiff’s Court, Thodupuzha for declaration of title and
possession of the plaint schedule properties and for
consequential relief. The defendants entered appearance.
Defendants 1 to 3 filed their written statement, contending
that the suit is barred by the provisions of the Revenue
Recovery Act. They pointed out that the proceedings
against property are in relation to abkari dues.
3. The 1st plaintiff was examined as PW1 and the 2nd
plaintiff was examined as PW2. Exts.A1 to A9 were marked
on the side of the plaintiffs. Since the defendants were not
present, no defence evidence was adduced. The court
below closed the evidence and decreed the suit. Ext.P1
judgment was passed in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs.
4. The respondents/defendants filed appeal as A.S.
W.P.(C) No. 9398/2010 2
No.26 of 2006 before the District Court, Thodupuzha. The
appellate court remanded the matter to the trial court for
fresh consideration, granting an opportunity to the
respondents/defendants to adduce evidence. When the
matter came up for trial, respondents/defendants filed I.A.
No.516 of 2010 for recalling PWs.1 and 2 for cross-
examination. The trial court found that there was nothing
wrong in recalling PWs.1 and 2 for further cross
examination and accordingly, passed the impugned order.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
contends that the order of the court below goes far beyond
the scope of remand order and hence, the impugned order
cannot be sustained. It is also pointed out that going by the
very order itself PWs. 1 and 2 have already been examined
and cross examined. It is, therefore, pointed out that the
order is bad in law.
6. It may not be so. The remand was for the purpose
of adducing evidence on the side of the defendants. There is
nothing wrong in recalling PWs.1 and 2 for further cross
W.P.(C) No. 9398/2010 3
examination, if defence felt that it was necessary. The court
below has exercised it discretion, taking into consideration
the entire evidence and circumstances available before it.
There is nothing to show that the impugned order is
perverse or illegal. If that be so, no interference is called
for.
Hence, the writ petition fails and is accordingly
dismissed.
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE.
mn.