ELSAMMA THOMAS Vs. FATHER THOMAS VEMPALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in O. S. No. 84/99 on the file of Principal subordinate Judge, Trivandrum challenges Ext. P7 order passed by the learned Judge in I. A. Nos. 3872/04 and 3887/04 dated 17. 9. 2004. The interim applications had been filed respectively by the plaintiff and defendants, seeking separate reliefs. The Subordinate judge had dismissed both the applications expressing the view that what was expedient was a disposal of the long pending suits.

(2.) THE counsel, Sri. Parthasarathy submits that although expediency might be of welcome, that should not be at the cost of a proper adjudication. He submits that the stakes involved in the suit were substantial, and relevancy and determination of interim applications were to be examined with reference to the facts of the case.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, it had been directed that on the basis of the previous report, same commissioner with the help of an expert commissioner was to value the work done by the plaintiff. Exts. P2 and P3 has been produced by the petitioner so as to show that in deference to the directions of the High Court, an expert, commissioner had been appointed. He had been directed to make a preliminary report, and a final report.