P.V.James vs Sosamma Varghese
2022 Latest Caselaw 5696 Ker

                 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

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

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