High Court Kerala High Court

Suresh @ Abraham George vs Raveendran on 30 July, 2010

Kerala High Court
Suresh @ Abraham George vs Raveendran on 30 July, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 23941 of 2010(O)


1. SURESH @ ABRAHAM GEORGE, AGED 46 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. RAVEENDRAN, AGED 43 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.SANTHOSH  (PODUVAL)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :30/07/2010

 O R D E R
                      THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.

                        -------------------------
                    W.P (C) No.23941 of 2010
                        --------------------------
               Dated this the 30th day of July, 2010

                          J U D G M E N T

This writ petition is filed by defendant No.2 in

O.S.No.2882 of 2007 of the court of learned Additional

Munsiff-II, Thrissur. That is a suit filed by respondent/plaintiff

claiming damages of personal injury he allegedly suffered at

the hands of petitioner. Respondent gave evidence as PW1

and his witness were also examined. Now the case stand

posted on 02-08-2010 to examine the investigating officer who

charge sheeted the criminal case. In the meantime counsel

for petitioner learned that certain material questions were not

put to the respondent when he was in the box. Thereon

petitioner filed Ext.P3, application supported by the affidavit

of counsel concerned to recall PW1 for further cross

examination. Grievance of petitioner is that Ext.P3,

application has not so far been disposed of and if the

investigating officer is examined before PW1 is recalled and

further examined, that will cause prejudice to the case set up

by petitioner. In the circumstance this writ petition seeking a

: 2 :

direction to dispose of Ext.P3, application before investigating

officer is examined.

2. I have gone through Ext.P3, application supported

by the affidavit of counsel concerned where he has stated that

by inadvertence he omitted to put certain relevant and

material questions to PW1. There appears to be some force in

the contention of petitioner that if the investigating officer is

examined before PW1 were recalled and further examined,

petitioner will be put to prejudice since petitioner has a case

that he also suffered injury in the same incident. Having

regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I direct

learned Additional Munsiff-II, Thrissur to dispose of Ext.P3,

application before the investigating officer is examined. In

case that application does not find favour with the learned

Munsiff, petitioner shall be given sufficient time to challenge

the order before investigating officer is examined.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

THOMAS P JOSEPH
JUDGE

Sbna/