IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942
OP(C).No.1845 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2020 IN IA 4/2020 in OS 1425/2015
of I ADDL. MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM
-----
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
CHOICE GARDENS APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION,
(REGD. NO.ER-59/96) TOC H NAGAR, VYTTILA P.O.,
KOCHI-682019, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY, DHARMESH SHAH, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.
HARISH P. SHAH, RESIDING AT B-2, CHOICE GARDENS',
VYTTILA, PIN-682019.
BY ADVS.
SRI.REJI GEORGE
SRI.BINOY DAVIS
SRI.RAMU RAJENDRAN
RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:
JOHNY GEORGE
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O. P.T. GEORGE, C-23, CHOICE GARDENS, TOC-H
NAGAR, VYTTILA, KOCHI-682019.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.01.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN, J.
==================
O. P. (C) No.1845 of 2020
==================
Dated this the 7th day of January, 2021
JUDGMENT
The request of the petitioner-plaintiff for permission to examine a witness in the suit was rejected by the trial court, against which this original petition.
2. Heard Sri.Reji George, on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff and Advocate Sri.Sreelal Warrier, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The suit is one for recovery of money. The trial of the suit commenced and PWs.1 and 2 have been examined. The suit stands posted for evidence of PW3. While so, the plaintiff felt the necessity to examine yet another witness viz. the treasurer of the plaintiff's association and made the request. The application was turned down by the trial court stating that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner-plaintiff to adduce necessary evidence. Learned counsel Sri.Sreelal Warrier attempts to support the impugned order O. P. (C) No.1845 of 2020 :- 2 :-
suggesting that the attempt of the petitioner is only to protract the proceedings.
4. As noticed, the suit is one for recovery of money which is claimed to be arrears of maintenance and other charges. In the nature of the claim made, the plaintiff would only be eager to have the suit disposed of at the earliest. The trial in the suit is going on and the plaintiff's evidence is not yet over. Permitting one more witness to be examined on the side of the plaintiff would not in any way protract or delay the trial. I am of the view that the application could be allowed.
5. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. IA 4/2020 will stand allowed. The plaintiff shall be permitted to examine the witness as sought for in the said application.
Original petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN JUDGE kns/-
//True Copy// P.S. to Judge OP(C).No.1845 OF 2020 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BYE LAWS OF THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF IN OS NO.1425/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT IN OS NO.1425/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF WITNESS DATED
31/01/2020 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF IN OS NO.1425/2015 ON THE FILEW OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF ADDITIONAL WITNESS DATED 12/02/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF IN OS NO.1425/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF IA NO.4/2020 IN OS
NO.1425/2015 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF BEFORE THE 1ST
ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13/02/2020 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM IN EXT.P6 APPLICATION.
-----