Back
2009 Supreme(Online)(KER) 37060
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J
T.K.DILIP SUKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
M.P.ANIL – Respondent
WP(C)/37294/2009
MR.N.NAGARESH, MR.K.BABU, MR.T.V.VINU
A party's right to present evidence and seek review is preserved even when interim orders are passed without full hearings.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Civil Procedure - Order Violation List - The act allows parties an opportunity to present their cases. The court interpreted the lack of prejudice against the petitioner and the rights to seek a review as crucial parameters influencing its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The defendant resisted a money suit filed by the plaintiff regarding carpentry work in a building. An advocate commissioner assessed the work done and the court directed the plaintiff to report additional work without hearing the defendant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order directing the plaintiff to furnish additional work details did not cause prejudicial harm to the defendant, who could contest the claims with evidence, thus upholding the lower court’s direction for fair adjudication.
Issues: Whether the order issued by the lower court to the plaintiff without hearing the defendant caused undue prejudice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendant retained the right to contest the claims made by the plaintiff, and the directions issued by the lower court were procedural, aimed at ensuring a fair trial.
Final Decision: The writ petition is closed with observations made regarding potential future relief.
J U D G M E N T
petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.202 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Thalassery. Respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for money for the work allegedly done by him in respect of a building put up by the petitioner/defendant. Suit claim was resisted by the defendant by filing written statement. On an application moved by the respondent/plaintiff an advocate commissioner was deputed by the court to ascertain the matters sought for as to the work allegedly done by the plaintiff in the building. After conducting a local inspection the advocate commissioner filed a memo that a direction be given to the plaintiff to report the additional carpentry work which he had carried out in the building. When the copy of the memo was served on the counsel for the defendant an endorsement was made that the defendant should be given an opportunity before passing orders on the basis of that memo. Without hearing him the court below passed an order on the memo directing the plaintiff to furnish the additional work done by him is the grievance espoused by the petitioner/defendant to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court to quash that order passed by the court below.
2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary, and it is dispensed with.
3. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Sub Judge on the memo filed by the advocate commissioner by issuing directions to the plaintiff to furnish the details of the additional work allegedly done by him in the building it is open to the petitioner to move a petition for reviewing that order before the court below. Whatever be the directions issued on the basis of the memo, prima facie, it appears, that order is unlikely to cause any prejudice to the petitioner/defendant as he can show that the additional works which are claimed by the plaintiff, if they are not actually done by him, were done by someone else. That is a matter of evidence. For the time being, for a proper and fair adjudication of the suit the direction issued by the court on the basis of the memo cannot be considered to be improper. However, I reserve the right of the petitioner to seek for appropriate relief as provided by law. if at all he has got any grievance against the order passed by the court below on the memo.
Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is closed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE.
