IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3197 of 2010(O)
1. HIGH RANGE SNDP UNION ADMINISTRATOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.A.SURENDRAN, S/O.ACHUTHAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU
For Respondent :SRI.K.JAGADEESCHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
Dated :10/01/2011
O R D E R
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.3197 of 2010
---------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of January 2011
J U D G M E N T
As per Ext.P10 order the learned Munsiff directed the
revision petitioner herein to produce certain documents
mentioned in Ext.P8. Resisting the request for summoning the
documents, objection statement was filed by the petitioner
herein. The objection raised by the petitioner was that the
documents sought for are not necessary for the determination of
the point involved in the application filed by the respondent
complaining of violation of the order of injunction. The objection
was turned down by the learned Munsiff and summons was
issued to the witnesses to produce the documents.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the order passed by the learned Munsiff under Order XXXIX Rule
1 CPC was not violated by the petitioner herein and that no
evidence as such is required in that matter. It is a fact that an
W.P.(C) No.3197 of 2010
-: 2 :-
application was filed by the respondent under Rule 2A of Order
XXXIX CPC. What are the documents to be produced to prove
the alleged violation of the order of injunction is not supposed to
be said by this Court at this stage. The main grievance of the
petitioner is that SNDP Yogam is a company whereas the High
Range SNDP Union is a Sakha. It is stated that this Sakha is not
directly under the control of the Yogam. Any way those are not
matters to be dealt with in this writ petition. The grievance
voiced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the
guise of a petition under Rule 2A of Order XXXIX the respondent
is trying to fish out evidence for some other case by collecting
documents from the Sakha which are absolutely not necessary
for the proper adjudication of the petition filed under Rule 2A of
Order XXXIX CPC.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that
the order passed by the court below summoning the witnesses to
produce certain documents is not something to be interfered
with invoking jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India. Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is only visitorial in nature. I find force in that submission.
W.P.(C) No.3197 of 2010
-: 3 :-
This Court should not interfere in the matter as the court below
has only summoned the witnesses to produce documents. The
relevancy or otherwise of those documents for the purpose of
adjudication of the petition filed under Rule 2A of Order XXXIX
CPC will certainly be considered when those documents are
brought in evidence. So much so, I find no reason to interfere
with the order passed by the learned Munsiff. The petitioner can
either produce the document or file an affidavit to the effect that
the documents are not with them, if it is so.
In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. But it is
made clear that, if the documents sought for are produced, the
court below should ensure that only those documents which are
relevant for the purpose of the case should be admitted and that
the respondent should not be permitted to fish out evidence for
some other case.
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.
Jvt