FRANKO E P Vs. K V ANTONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No.1 filed O.S. No.745 of 2009 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda against petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3. Petitioner is the son-in-law of respondent No.1 and brother of respondent No.2. Petitioner and respondent No.2 availed cash credit facility from respondent No.3 on 06.06.2006 and the property of petitioner and respondent No.2 were offered as security to respondent No.3. RESPONDENT No.1 claimed that he had to discharge the liability and in turn filed O.S. No.745 of 2009 for a decree for recovery of the amount by sale of the property which was offered as security to respondent No.3. It is the case of petitioner-defendant No.1 that he had some other transactions with respondent No.2 while at Dubai and in connection with that, there were cases and those cases were decided. It is also the case of petitioner that respondent No.1 has filed O.S. No.728 of 2009 as Power of Attorney of respondent No.2 for partition of certain properties. Petitioner would say that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are colluding to defeat him. In the meantime O.S. No.745 of 2009 was posted for steps on 18.10.2010. According to the petitioner, without even including the case in the list for trial it is posted on 27.10.2010 for evidence. Petitioner wants certain documents which are to be obtained from Dubai to be produced in support of his contention in O.S. No.745 of 2009. But since case is posted on 27.10.2010 he is not in a position to get those documents and produce the same and hence this petition seeking a direction to the learned Sub Judge to postpone trial of O.S. No.745 of 2009. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondents would contend that respondent No.1 has nothing to do with the case between petitioner and respondent No.2 and the attempt of petitioner is to prolong the case.

(2.) FACT remains that case was not included in the list for trial and it was posted for evidence on 27.10.2010 when it was taken up on 18.10.2010. Presently I am not going into the question whether the documents being relied upon by the petitioner are relevant for consideration. But petitioner must be given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his case. Learned counsel states that petitioner is prepared to produce all his evidence before 18.12.2010 and that the case could be posted for evidence on any day thereafter. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to allow the request. Hence the learned Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda is directed to post O.S. No.745 of 2009 for evidence to a day after 18.12.2010. Original Petition is disposed of with the above direction.