JOSE Vs. PATHROSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, plaintiff in O.S. No.200/2010 of Munsiff Court, Aluva, came up with this application, aggrieved by the order dated 01.10.2014, by which, the learned Munsiff re-opened the case and posted the same for evidence without having a look at the award passed and the allegation levelled against the award by the defendant and also without looking into the question whether any sufficient ground for re-opening the case. Nothing mentioned with respect to the grounds alleged by the defendant for re-opening the award. No speaking order was passed by the learned Munsiff. It is really amounts to miscarriage of justice by the learned Munsiff. The jurisdiction vested with the learned Munsiff has not been exercised in its correct perspective. On the other hand, committed a grave mistake without passing a speaking order stating the grounds which were available for setting aside the award and to re-open the case for evidence. It is seemed to be so strange that nothing mentioned in the order with respect to the fate of award whether it was accepted or set aside and as such, the order dated 01.10.2014 is liable to be intercepted and I do so. The matter is remanded back to the lower court to have a disposal of the matter on merits by rendering a speaking order, taking into consideration all the grounds raised by both the parties and shall pass an order possibly within one month from the date of appearance of parties in the lower court. The parties shall appear before the lower court on 24.03.2017. No order as to costs.