Loading...

Abdul Majeed vs State Of Kerala Rep. By The Chief on 11 June, 2007

Kerala High Court
Abdul Majeed vs State Of Kerala Rep. By The Chief on 11 June, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 12650 of 2004(E)


1. ABDUL MAJEED, S/O.AHAMMED MYTHEEN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE CHIEF
                       ...       Respondent

2. AHAMMED KANNU, AZHA MUGHAL HOUSE,

3. ISHA BEEVI SYED MOHAMMED, ALIEAS K.S.

4. AHAMMED MYTHEEN MUHAMMED ISMAIL,

5. AHAMMED MYTHEEN KULSEEM BEEVI,

6. AHAMMED MYUTHEEN MEHAMOOD BEEGUM,

7. AHAMMED MYTHEEN SHUADU BEEGUM,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.TOMY SEBASTIAN

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :11/06/2007

 O R D E R
                              PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

                               -------------------------------

                           W.P.(C) No. 12650  OF 2004

                             -----------------------------------

                      Dated this the 11th day of June, 2007


                                      JUDGMENT

Ext.P5 order by which an application filed by the petitioners for re-

marking certified copies of documents which were originally marked as

Exts.A1 to A12 was dismissed is under challenge. Ext.P5 is the

common order issued by the court on two applications filed by the

petitioner-plaintiff containing substantially the same prayers. According

to the petitioners after the documents were marked, there was an

appeal before the District Court, Kottayam against the order of the Court

dismissing an application for interim injunction as CMA No.34/97 and

against the judgment in the CMA, CRP No.2705 of 1998 was filed

before this Court and during the pendency of CMA and CRP the trial of

the suit stood stayed. Later a more comprehensive suit, OS No.30/67

was filed by the petitioner and the original of the documents which were

marked, were got back on an application for production in that suit. OS

No.30/67 was decreed and now the final decree in that suit is being

executed. The originals of Exts.A1 to A12 are in the records of the

execution proceedings relating to OS No.30/67. The instant application

was filed when the trial of the suit resumed after dismissal of the CRP by

this Court. The learned Munsiff under Ext.P5 order dismissed both the

applications. Even though the respondents have been served with

WPC No.12650 of 2004

2

notice, they have not come forward to resist the prayers in the Writ

Petition.

2. Heard Sri.Tomy Sebastian, counsel for the petitioner.

3. I have gone through Ext.P5. The view taken by the court below

in Ext.P5 can be said to be correct at least technically. But at the same

time the fact remains that at least six of the documents marking of which

was sought for by the petitioner were documents issued as true copies

of the originals by the court which is presently in custody of the original.

The learned Munsiff should have permitted the marking of at least six

documents, in my opinion.

3. Therefore, setting aside Ext.P5 and allowing the writ petition,

there will be a direction to the court below to mark all certified copies

after ensuring that the certified copies have been certified to be true

copies of the originals by the Court which is the present custodian of the

originals. It is made clear that the petitioner will get the benefit of this

judgment only if the trial of the suit is not yet over. There was no stay

from this Court and there is a possibility of the suit itself has already

been disposed of.

The Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent. No costs.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

btt

WPC No.12650 of 2004

3

WPC No.12650 of 2004

4

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information