Jacob Ouseph vs Mariyamma Joseph
2023 Latest Caselaw 6458 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
         TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1945
                          OP(C) NO. 1632 OF 2019
               O.S.NO.380/2015 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KATTAPPANA
PETITIONER:

              JACOB OUSEPH,
              S/O.OUSEPH, AGED 63 YEARS,
              PUTTANANIKKAL HOUSE, CHEMBALAM PO,
              KALKOONTHAL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK.

              BY ADVS.
              P.RADHAKRISHNAN
              MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN
              NELSON JOSEPH
              M.D.JOSEPH


RESPONDENTS:

     1        MARIYAMMA JOSEPH,
              W/O.JOSEPH, AGED 58 YEARS,
              PUTTANANIKKAL HOUSE, CHEMBALAM PO,
              KALKOONTHAL VILLAGE,
              UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK-685 553
     2        SIJO,
              S/O.OUSEPH, AGED 27 YEARS,
              KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHEMBALAM PO,
              KALKOONTHAL VILLAGE,
              UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK-685 553
     3        ANTONY JOSEPH @ PONNACHAN,
              S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 58 YEARS,
              PALATHANATHU HOUSE, CHEMBALAM PO,
              KALKOONTHAL VILLAGE,
              UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK-685 553

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.MATHEW JOHN K - FOR R1
              SRI.MATHEW DEVASSI - FOR R1


     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.06.2023, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP(C) NO. 1632 OF 2019

                                        2


                              JUDGMENT

It is pertaining to summoning of witness, the

aggrieved person came up. Going by the order

passed by the trial court, it is clear that no

reason was assigned for not allowing the

examination of the witness or summoning the

witness and as such, the order cannot be

sustained. The jurisdiction vested with the trial

court was not exercised in its correct perceptive

and that has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

It is really a matter of adducing evidence, which

shall not be curtailed unless there is a

warranting reason. No such warranting reason was

mentioned anywhere in the impugned order and

nothing was brought to the notice of this court

at the time when the matter came up for hearing

and as such, the order of the court below will

stand set aside. The application will stand OP(C) NO. 1632 OF 2019

allowed. The trial court shall issue summons to

the witness and proceed with the suit.

The original petition will stand allowed

accordingly. The trial court shall expedite the

disposal of the suit within a time schedule of

four months from the next posting date. Report

compliance.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE rkr OP(C) NO. 1632 OF 2019

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1632/2019

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 380/2015. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN OS 380/2015.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE WITNESS LIST. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MUNSIFF COURT ON 29.5.2019.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT BELOW ON 6.6.2019.

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ON 12.6.2019 BEFORE THE COURT BELOW.

EXHIBIT P7 THE WITNESS SCHEDULE FILED TO ISSUE SUMMONS TO THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF RE-SURVEY. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT ON 14.6.2019.

EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE IA 802/2019 ALONG WITH THE WITNESS SCHEDULE.

EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT BELOW ON 17.6.2019.

RESPONDENT EXHIBIT        NIL


                                 TRUE COPY
                                 P.A.TO JUDGE