IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25683 of 2008(G)
1. KIZHAKKE VALAPPIL GOPALAN,S/O CHOYI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. B.K. NARAYANAN, S/O KORAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :26/08/2008
O R D E R
M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.25683 OF 2008
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondent the defendant in
O.S.13 of 2006 on the file of Munsiff-Magistrate Court, Payyoli.
This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India
challenging Ext.P7 order passed by the Munsiff in I.A.231 of
2008, filed under Rule 14 of Order VII of Code of Civil Procedure
to receive a document as evidence. In the affidavit filed in
support of the petition, petitioner did not show any reason why
the document was not filed earlier. Under Ext.P7 order learned
Munsiff dismissed the application.
2. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for
petitioner is that suit is based on a promissory note and
therefore there is no necessity for production of the document
produced along with I.A.231 of 2008 along with suit and reason
for the delay in production of the document was stated in the
application for amendment filed and in such circumstances
learned Munsiff should have allowed the application.
WP(C)25683/08 2
3. Ext.P7 order shows that in the written statement
respondent disputed execution of the promissory note and at
the instance of the petitioner promissory note was sent to an
expert for his opinion and expert has given opinion that
signature seen in the promissory note is not that of the
respondent. It is thereafter the document is produced before
the Court contending that the document contains an
acknowledgement of execution of the promissory note. Learned
Munsiff found that if that be the case petitioner would have
produced the document earlier. I do not find any illegality or
irregularity warranting interference in Ext.P2 order.
4. Rule 14 of Order VII mandates that it is not only the
documents based on which the suit is instituted but also
documents which are relied on in support of the claim which
shall be entered in a list and shall be produced in Court when
the plaint is presented. Sub rule 3 of Rule 14 of Order VII
provides that such document shall not be received as evidence
without the leave of the Court at the time of hearing of the suit.
Inspite of this provision petitioner did not mention any reason
why the document was not produced earlier in the petition. In
WP(C)25683/08 3
such circumstances writ petition is dismissed. Petitioner is at
liberty to challenge Ext.P2 order along with the final judgment,
if it goes against him.
M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE
Okb/-