High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
N.X.FRANCIS, AGED 47 YEARS v. DARMADEEPTHI COMPANY REGD. OFFICE AT - CRP No. 370 of 2006  RD-KL 387 (5 January 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMCRP No. 370 of 2006()
1. N.X.FRANCIS, AGED 47 YEARS,
2. JANCY FRANCIS, AGED 41, W/O.FRANCIS,
3. RAGHAVAN NAIR, AGED 65 YERS,
1. DARMADEEPTHI COMPANY REGD. OFFICE AT
2. T.A.PATHROSE, AGED 42, S/O.ALIAS,
3. JOSEPH FRANCIS, AGED 43, S/O.FRANCIS,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.K.VEERAVUNNY
For Respondent :SRI.P.T.SEBASTIAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.C.R.P.NO.370 OF 2006
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2007
ORDERPetitioners are the defendants 1,2 and 4 in O.S.146/04 on the file of Munsiff Court, Aluva. First respondent is the plaintiff and respondents 2 and 3 are other defendants. Plaintiff filed I.A.1206/06 for permission to examine Asst. Manager of plaintiff Company as a witness. Under order dated, 15.6.06, learned Munsiff allowed the application. It is challenged in this revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Under the impugned interlocutory order, the suit has not been decided. Even if I.A.1206/06 was dismissed, it would not have terminated the suit. Therefore, under proviso to Section 115 of the Code, no revision will lie against that order. Even on merits, as per the order leaned Munsiff has only permitted plaintiff to examine Asst. Manger as a witness. The contention of petitioners was that Asst. Manager is not competent to represent the Company in the legal matters. The effect of the evidence of that witness is to be decided in the suit. Even if Asst. Manager is examined as a witness, petitioners are entitled to raise their contentions on the sufficiency of his C.R.P.370/06 2 evidence. In such circumstances there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. Revision petition is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.