IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 30569 of 2005(L)
1. MEERA SAHIB, S/O.MUHAMMED KANNU,
... Petitioner
2. BIYATHUKANNU, D/O.PODIPILLAI,
3. SHAJAHAN, S/O.JAMALUDEEN,
4. B.B.FATHIMA, D/O.MOHAMMED KANNU HAJIAR,
5. LIYAKATTU ALIKHAN, 37 YEARS,
6. RAHIMATH BEEVI, D/O.IBRAHIM KANNU,
7. ASGAR, S/O.MOHAMMED HANEEFA,
8. ANIL, S/O.MOHAMMED HANEEFA,
Vs
1. C.P.SARATHI, S/O.V.CHANDRASEKHARAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.G.P.SHINOD
For Respondent :SRI.S.M.PREM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :16/08/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
----------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 30569 of 2005
----------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of August , 2007
JUDGMENT
Ext.P5 order of the learned Subordinate Judge directing the
writ petitioners to produce the originals of certain sale documents
executed by the 15th defendant in their favour is under challenge.
2. I have heard the submissions of Sri.V.Manu the learned
counsel for the petitioners and Sri.S.M.Prem the learned counsel for
the respondent. Sri.Manu submitted that execution or otherwise of the
documents in question is not a matter in dispute. No relief at all are
sought against the petitioners or in respect of the documents sought
to be produced in the present suit. It is stated by the plaintiff in
paragraph 6 of the plaint that she is not claiming relief of
cancellation of those documents since the relief of setting aside the
sale deeds in favour of the present petitioners is claimed in O.S.
No.553/1991 filed by the defendants 1 to 14 and such relief will enure
for the benefit of the plaintiff in the suit(contesting respondent herein)
and that she is not claiming any such relief. In answer to an earlier
petition filed by the respondent plaintiff for directing the production of
the original of the documents, the writ petitioners filed a counter
WPC No.30569/2005 2
affidavit stating that they do not have the originals in their custody
since those documents have been deposited with some financial
institutions in connection with an equitable mortgage. On noticing that
counter, Ext.P3 application has been filed. What is stated in the
affidavit in support of Ext.P3 is that the case of the petitioners that the
the documents have been deposited in connected with the equitable
mortgage is highly doubtful. In Ext.P3 prayer is made for
disclosure of full whereabouts of the originals of sale deeds registered
as document Nos. 2781, 2782, 2783, 2784, 2785, 2786 and 2788 of
1990, SRO Parasala, dated 23.6.90 executed by the 15th defendant.
3. To Ext.P3, a detailed objection (Ext.P4) was filed by the
petitioners contending inter alia that production of the documents is
not at all relevant or necessary in the nature of the reliefs sought for
in the suit. Repelling those contentions, the learned Subordinate Judge
had passed impugned order Ext.P5 recording the contention of the
petitioner( first respondent) that the mode of disposition by the 15th
defendant and his signature etc. are to be verified and that relevant
facts have also to be brought in evidence. Sri.S.M.Prem, the learned
counsel for the respondent would strenuously submit that the
production of the originals of the documents is necessary for the
purpose of confronting the 15th defendant who is presently in the
WPC No.30569/2005 3
witness box for the purpose of cross examination.
4. I am unable to agree that the production of the originals is
necessary for adjudicating any issue which is relevant in the present
suit. Concededly in the other suit (suit No.553/1991) the document in
question have already been set aside. May be confrontation of the
15th defendant with originals of these documents which contain the
original signature of the 15th defendant may be of use to the
respondent in some other proceedings in respect of the properties.
As far as this suit is concerned, the production of the originals and
confrontation of the 15th defendant with admitted signatures in these
documents, according to me, is not relevant or necessary for
adjudication.
In view of that matter I set aside Ext.P5 and dismiss I.A.
2253/2005. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion
on the merits of the rival contentions in the suit.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,
JUDGE.
Dpk
WPC No.30569/2005 4