Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE SECRETARY, KARADKA GRAMA versus SRIHARI, 35 YEARS

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


THE SECRETARY, KARADKA GRAMA v. SRIHARI, 35 YEARS - WP(C) No. 97 of 2006(J) [2007] RD-KL 13069 (13 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 97 of 2006(J)

1. THE SECRETARY, KARADKA GRAMA
... Petitioner

Vs

1. SRIHARI, 35 YEARS.
... Respondent

2. N.GOPALAKRISHNA, 48 YEARS.

3. N.CHANDRAMOHAN, 42 YEARS.

4. GOVINDA, 31 YEARS, SON OF KORAGA,

For Petitioner :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :13/07/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

.......................................................... W.P.(C)No.97 OF 2006 ...........................................................

DATED THIS THE 13th JULY, 2007



J U D G M E N T

The fervent and persuasive submissions of Mr.K.Jayesh Mohankumar, counsel for the petitioner notwithstanding, I am not inclined to set aside Ext.P6 order straightaway. But, at the same time, it appears to me that the contentions raised by the petitioner in para.7 of Ext.P2 written statement and also through Ext.P5, the affidavit in support of I.A.1928 of 2005, on the basis of which Ext.P6 order is now passed, require to be examined by the learned Munsiff even before he decides the suit.

2. Accordingly I permit the petitioner to cite the advocate commissioner as his first witness when the case is posted for defence evidence. The petitioner can cross-examine the advocate commissioner and can also adduce any other evidence which the Panchayat may have against the commissioner's report and in support of I.A.No.1928 of 2005. Once the petitioner has completed that part of his evidence regarding the acceptability of the present commissioner's report, the learned Munsiff will hear the parties on the basis of the evidence which has come on record (i.e., the evidence of the plaintiffs and the evidence of the 1st defendant adduced in the WP(C)N0.97/06 context of the objections to the commissioner's report) and take a decision as to whether the commissioner's report requires remittance or cancellation. The learned Munsiff will proceed with the trial further, only after a decision is given on the above issue. If the learned Munsiff is convinced on the basis of the evidence that there is warrant for either remitting the commissioner's report or to set aside the report, then the confirmation of Ext.P6 by this Court will not stand in the way. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

tgl WP(C)N0.97/06


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.