Beebi Subaida vs Parakandy Abdul Vahid and P.K. Naseema, Kannur Steel Agencies

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—Under challenge in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is Ext.P5 order passed by the learned Rent Control Court. Ext.P5 is challenged on various grounds including the ground that the court below should not have insisted on a party to the proceeding appearing before the court against his wishes at the instance of the opposite party. Sri V.R.K. Kaimal, the learned Counsel for the first respondent/landlord would submit that though the landlord had filed I.A. 2798/08, the landlord did not want to press the above I.A. Under the above circumstances, we set aside Ext.P5 and dismiss I.A. 2798/08 observing that the learned Rent Control Court was not justified in directing the appearance of the petitioner on the basis of an application submitted by the respondent. If the petitioner did not appear and adduce evidence for substantiating his contentions, it may be possible for the first respondent to seek drawal of adverse inference against him. But Ext.P5 order compelling the petitioner to appear at the instance of the first respondent should not have been passed.

We notice that under Ext.P7 appellate judgment, the Appellate Authority has refused to entertain the appeal on the ground that Ext.P5 order is an interlocutory order. The above view of the Appellate Authority is certainly correct. However, we set aside Ext.P7 appellate judgment also, as Ext.P5 is already set aside.