IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10705 of 2009(O)
1. BHASKARAN,(RETIRED TEACHER),AGED 70,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JOICE ANTONY @ JAISON,
... Respondent
2. ANANTHAKRISHNAN @ ANANDAN,
3. JIJEESH,S/O.PANAPARAMBIL VELAYUDHAN,
4. PRASANNAN,S/O.THADATHIL VASU,
5. SHAJI,S/O.MADAMBIPARAMBIL VASUDEVAN,
6. MANOJ,S/O.NADUVALAPPIL RAMANADHAN,
7. PREMADAS,AGED 42 YEARS,S/O.BHASKARAN,
8. LEELA,AGED 65 YEARS,W/O.BHASKARAN,
9. SHALI,W/O.PREMADAS,
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJIT
For Respondent :SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :11/06/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C).NO.10705 OF 2009 (O)
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
i. to set aside Ext.P5 order dated 24.3.2009
in I.A.No.643/2009 in O.S.No.2867/2006 of
the 1st Additional Munsiff Court, Thrissur
and allow Ext.P4 application filed by the
petitioner.
ii. to grant such other relief deemed fit to
this Honourable Court.
2. Petitioner is the 1st plaintiff in O.S.No.2867/06 on the
file of the Munsiff’s Court, Thrissur. Respondents 1 to 6 in the
petition are the defendants and respondents 7 to 9 are
the co-plaintiffs in the suit. Suit was one for a mandatory
injunction for directing defendants 1 to 6 to return some
documents, stamp papers and signed blank cheques which are
WPC.10705/09 2
purported to have taken by them from the plaintiffs keeping
them under duress and by force, and in the alternative for
declaring that the documents obtained by such defendants are
null and void. In a nutshell, the case of the plaintiffs was that
trespassing upon his plaint schedule building at midnight,
keeping them under duress and by threatening them, some
blank signed cheques and stamp papers were collected from
them by the defendants 1 to 6 alleging that the 7th respondent
had some liability in connection with some transactions
entered with the above defendants. The defendants resisted
the suit claim filing a written statement and after settling of
issues the trial proceeded. It is the case of the petitioner that
after the plaintiffs evidence was over, the defendants
produced a counterfoil of a chellan to show that one of the
cheques covered by the suit was presented before the Bank
even before the incident alleged by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs
thereupon sought for examination of one more additional
witness, a Bank official, who at the relevant time was the
Manager of the bank concerned. Only at the time of his
examination, it is the case of the plaintiffs, they came to know
WPC.10705/09 3
that he had retired from service, and as such, incapable of
producing the connected records relating to the cheque which
is covered by Ext.P2 receipt from the Bank. After the
examination of that witness, plaintiffs moved an application to
summon one more witness, Branch Manager of the Bank with
direction to produce some books maintained by the Bank and
also the account statement of the 1st defendant during the
relevant period. The defendants objected to the petitioner’s
prayer made in the petition filing written objections. The
learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides, declined the request
of the plaintiff and dismissed the application. Ext.P5 is the
copy of that order. Impeaching the correctness of that order,
petitioner has filed this writ petition invoking the supervisory
jurisdiction of this Court vested under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
3. I heard the counsel on both sides. Having regard to
the submissions made and taking note of the facts and
circumstances presented, I find that outright rejection of
Ext.P4 application by the learned Munsiff without
WPC.10705/09 4
appreciating the disputed facts involved in the case arising for
adjudication was not proper and correct. I do not wish to
express any opinion on the reasonings made by the learned
Munsiff in Ext.P5 order, but, in the nature of the disputes
presented in the case, it is crystal clear that the request made
by the plaintiff deserved serious consideration. I find that it
would suffice the ends of justice if the plaintiffs are given an
opportunity to collect from the Bank, copies of the relevant
entries relating to Ext.P2 from the concerned registers
maintained by an order of the learned Munsiff commanding
the Bank to issue such certified copies. Section 2 (8) of [The]
Bankers’ Books Evidence Act defines a ‘certified copy’ in
relation to the books and registers to be maintained by the
Bank in respect of its transactions. A certified copy issued by
the Bank with respect to the entries in such books
maintained by the Bank can be treated as sufficient proof
unless the contrary is shown. Plaintiff can move an
application before the learned Munsiff requesting for an order
to the Bank Manager of the concerned Bank to supply him the
certified copies of the transactions relating to Ext.P2 counter
WPC.10705/09 5
foil produced in the case, and if any such request is made,
appropriate orders thereof have to be passed by the learned
Munsiff enabling the plaintiff to collect such certified copies.
The second request made by the plaintiff in Ext.P4 application
relate to the details of the account statement of the
1st defendant, which for the entire period of its operation is
not allowable. If the plaintiff makes a request in respect of the
transaction in his account for the month of ‘April’ and for the
issue of certified copy thereof, the learned Munsiff, as
indicated above, shall pass appropriate orders enabling him to
collect such a certified copy. Ext.P5 order is modified in the
lines indicated above and the writ petition is disposed of.
Communicate a copy of the judgment to the court below
forthwith.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
——————————————————–
CRL.R.P.NO. OF 2006 ()
———————————————————
O R D E R
———————————————————
23rd March, 2009