GOVINDJI PADAMSHI Vs. BHAWANJI HANSRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed in I.A. No. 976 of 2002 in O.S. No. 389 of 1995, by the Principal Sub Judge, Kochi dated 1.10.2002 evidenced by Ext.P12 is under challenge at the instance of the plaintiff. I may extract the order as herein below:

(2.) The witness had come to the court on 1.10.2002, but the court was of the view that an affidavit was mandatorily to be filed and opportunity for the plaintiff would be only to cross-examine the witness in case of necessity. Mr. Ravindran appearing for the petitioner submits that since petitioner was not prepared to adopt the course suggested, the Subordinate Judge had dismissed the application as evidenced by Ext.P12 order referred to earlier. He submits that Ext.P12 requires to be set aside and the application requires to be reopened, permitting oral evidence in lieu of the affidavit for the purpose of examination-in-chief of the two summoned witnesses.

(3.) The plea as above is opposed by counsel appearing for the respondents. Sri. T.A. Narayanan Nair, appearing for the contesting respondents submits that there was nothing objectionable in the course adopted by the learned Judge and the adamancy shown by the petitioner has resulted in protracting the matters. According to him, the contingency as highlighted by the petitioner had been brought to the attention of the Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India 2002 (3) KLT 920 (SC) and following the observation there, the Writ Petition deserved to be dismissed.