IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
Friday, the 27th day of May 2022 / 6th Jyaishta, 1944
OP(C) NO. 1212 OF 2020
OS 19/2018 OF SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
P.V.JAMES, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O KURIEN VARGHESE, PARUPPALLIL VEEDU,
PALIAKKARA, THIRUVALLA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689 101.
BY ADVS.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN & T.S.HARIKUMAR
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
SOSAMMA VARGHESE, AGED 82 YEARS, W/O KURIEN VARGHESE, PARUPPALLIL
VEEDU, PALIAKKARA, THIRUVALLA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689 101.
BY ADV SRI.ABRAHAM SAMSON
This OP(C) having come up for orders on 27.05.2022, upon perusing
the letter dated 31.03.2022 of the Sub Judge, Thiruvalla, and this court's
judgment dated 29.09.2021 in OP(C), the court on the same day passed the
following;
(p.t.o)
V.G.ARUN, J.
=========================
O.P.(C)No. 1212 of 2020
=========================
Dated this the 27th day of May, 2022
ORDER
By judgment dated 29.09.2021, the original petition was disposed of, permitting the petitioner to make an application for reopening the evidence of the respondent. It was directed that if such application is filed, the same shall positively be dealt with by the trial court, by issuing a Commission for examination and the petitioner permitted to cross-examine the respondent. As the respondent had a grievance that the suit is getting delayed, the petitioner was directed to file the application for reopening of evidence within one week and the trial court directed to pass orders thereon immediately.
2. From the letter of the learned Sub Judge, it is seen that all steps in pursuance of the direction of this Court was taken by the court. The learned Sub Judge is in a quandary due to the dilatory tactics adopted by the O.P.(C)No. 1212 of 2020 2 petitioner. The petitioner filed an application for reviewing the order by which the plaintiff/respondent was declared indigent. After filing the application, the petitioner's Counsel is not getting ready for arguments. The petitioner is seeking adjournment by stating that a transfer petition (TP (OP) No.796/2021), for transferring the suit in question is pending before the High Court.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that, till date, the transfer petition has not been brought up for admission. It is pointed out that the respondent is aged more than 80 years and her mental condition is worsening day by day. Hence, grant of further time will cause intense prejudice to her.
4. Having considered the request of the learned Sub Judge and having heard the learned Counsel for the respondent, I find substance in the allegation that the petitioner is deliberately protracting the cross-examination of the respondent. If the petitioner is not wiling to cross-examine the respondent, the learned Sub Judge can record that and close the evidence. The O.P.(C)No. 1212 of 2020 3 pendency of a transfer petition before the High Court without any orders, is no reason to adjourn the proceedings.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE NB/27-5 27-05-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar