AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thomas P. Joseph, J.—Respondent No. 1 filed a suit against petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for damages for his alleged false
implication in Crime No. 176 of 1998 of Piravom Police Station, his arrest and judicial custody. Petitioner who then was the Circle Inspector of
Police, Piravom contended that it was on getting sufficient information that respondent No. 1 was implicated in the criminal case, arrested and
remanded to judicial custody and that further investigation was conducted by his successors in office. He claimed inter alia that the suit is not
maintainable u/s 64(4) of the Kerala Police Act. He filed I.A. No. 1206 of 2002 under Order XIV Rule 2(2) of the CPC (for short, ""the Code"")
to decide maintainability of the suit as a preliminary issue. Learned Munsiff, Muvattupuzha (in O.S. No. 202 of 2001) passed Ext.P4, order dated
05.04.2006 stating that Advocate Commissioner has been appointed to record evidence, evidence could be recorded during the vacation (of that
year) and that all the issues concerned can be decided after vacation. I.A. No. 1206 of 2002 was posted along with the suit. That order is under
challenge. When this matter came up for admission, this Court on 22.05.2006 passed an order that pendency of the Writ Petition will not bar trial
court from hearing and disposing of the suit. Learned Counsel for petitioner was not able to confirm whether the suit has already been disposed of
or not.
Either way I do not find merit in this Writ Petition. Reason is that the suit was instituted in the year 2001 and it was in the year 2002 that
petitioner filed I.A. No. 1206 of 2002. Whatever be the reason thereof, order (Ext.P4) on I.A. No. 1206 of 2002 was passed only on
05.04.2006, ie. almost five years after institution of the suit. Now, it is October, 2010. Learned Munsiff has observed that an Advocate
Commissioner has already been appointed to record evidence, evidence could be recorded immediately and thereafter all the issues can be
decided. In the light of that I do not find reason to interfere with the order under challenge and direct maintainability of the suit to be heard as a
preliminary issue which would only further prolong the suit (if it is not already disposed of). May be, the question whether there was any reasonable
cause to respondent No. 1 to implead petitioner in the matter is also required to be considered in deciding maintainability of the suit which cannot
be decided under Order XIV Rule 2(2) of the Code. In the circumstances I do not find reason to entertain this Writ Petition.
Writ Petition is dismissed.