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
