M.A.K. AZAD Vs. VARKEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I heard Mr. Varghese C. Kuriakose, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. K.G. Balasubramanian and Mr. K.S. Bharathan, Advocates on behalf of the other respondents.

(2.) THIS is an yet another Original Petition filed from an interim order passed in O.S. No. 477/2007 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Irinjalakuda. The present Original Petition was admitted to file on 16.08.2012 and notice by special messenger ordered to the respondents. But it is appalling to note that the petitioner did not take steps to serve notice on the respondents by special messenger as ordered. The petitioner is stated to have taken steps only on 03.10.2012 and that too after the respondents entered appearance through counsel. Resultantly the court below was not able to pronounce the judgment in the suit eventhough the evidence has been recorded and the arguments addressed.

(3.) THE petitioner cannot compel the third defendant to appear in court and tender evidence. Other contesting defendants have adduced evidence and addressed arguments too. The evidence is sought to be reopened only for the purpose of examining the police officer. Nothing turns out on the statement alleged to have been given by the third defendant to the police. This is especially so when pleadings in that behalf are scanty.