Noorjahan vs Saheeda Beevi
2021 Latest Caselaw 1512 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

    THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 24TH POUSHA, 1942

                        OP(C).No.1079 OF 2020

 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.2.2020 I.A.NO.455/2020 IN OS 138/2015
        ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD


PETITIONER/DEFENDANT:

             NOORJAHAN,
             AGED 45 YEARS,
             W/O.ABUBACKER, PUTHANPEEDIAKKAL HOUSE, KIZHEDATH,
             KUNDALASSERY, KERALASSERY, PALAKKAD.

             BY ADV. SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN

RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

             SAHEEDA BEEVI,
             AGED 38 YEARS,
             D/O.ASSAN MUHAMMED, KAMBRATHU CHALLA, MUTHALAMADA
             P.O., CHITTUR, PALAKKAD-678 507.


     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.01.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP(C).No.1079 OF 2020                    2




                               JUDGMENT

The defendant in O.S.No.138 of 2015 before

the Additional Munsiff Court, Palakkad is the

petitioner in this proceeding initiated under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The evidence in the suit was closed

after examining her. She sought to reopen the

case for evidence and recall her for further

examination.

3. Her grievance is to the effect that

some of the answers given by her during her

examination were not correctly recorded by the

court. She was examined on 29.1.2020. She did

not ask for correction of the deposition then

and there after having read and understood it.

On the other hand, on 31.1.2020, she filed

Ext.P3 application for an order allowing

further examination which was turned down by

the court below after hearing both sides.

4. On going through Ext.P5 impugned order,

I find that the court below has justifiably

taken the view that the petitioner cannot be

allowed to be recalled. It is pointed out in

the order that she was re-examined extensively

with permission and even after re-examination

also, there was further cross- examination of

her. The court below also has pointed out that

there was an instance in which her examination

before the advocate commissioner could not be

completed due to her attitude and the court had

to undertake her examination before the court

itself.

5. I did not have the advantage of hearing

the respondent, despite notice of this

proceeding having been served on her. For the

reasons stated above, I do not find any reason

to interfere with the impugned order.

In the result, this O.P fails and it is

dismissed. However, I make it clear that it

will be open to the court below to look into

petitioner's grievance that her answers were

not correctly recorded when final arguments are

addressed and suit is disposed of.

Sd/-

T.V.ANILKUMAR, JUDGE

pm

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 31.01.2015.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROOF AFFIDAVIT DATED 15.11.2019.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF IA NO.455/2020 DATED 31.01.2020.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 06.02.2020.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2020 IN IA NO.455/2020 IN OS NO.138/2015.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DEPOSITION.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE PETITIONER

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL