High Court Kerala High Court

M/S. Sajeed Bakers vs State Bank Of India (Adb) on 22 October, 2008

Kerala High Court
M/S. Sajeed Bakers vs State Bank Of India (Adb) on 22 October, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 29912 of 2008(J)


1. M/S. SAJEED BAKERS, REPRESENTED BY ITS
                      ...  Petitioner
2. NADUVATH MUHAMMEDALI,
3. ABDULLA HAJI, S/O. PAKRAN, AYANOTH HOUSE

                        Vs



1. STATE BANK OF INDIA (ADB)
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SANTHARAM.P

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :22/10/2008

 O R D E R
                       THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
                        ------------------------------
                      W.P(c) No. 29912 of 2008
                        ------------------------------
                Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2008

                               JUDGMENT

Heard counsel for the petitioners.

2. Respondents/plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of

money against the petitioners. Petitioners filed written statement

taking up contentions as revealed by Exhibits P3 to P5. While so,

petitioners filed Exhibit P8 application (I.A. No.1032 of 2008) to serve

interrogatories on the respondents/plaintiff. Application was opposed

by the respondents/plaintiff. Learned Sub Judge as per Exhibit P10.

order dismissed the application observing that all the questions

required to be answered by the respondent/plaintiff are contained in

Exhibits P3 to P5. Learned counsel submits that Exhibit P3 to P5 may

not be admissible in evidence. Hence petitioners are entitled to get

affirmation of the facts stated in Exhibit P3 to P5.

3. So far as Exhibit P8, application is concerned I find that all

the questions required to be served on the respondents/plaintiff are

covered by Exhibits P3 to P5 and were already pleaded by the

W.P(c) No. 29912/2008
2

petitioners/defendants in their written statement. It is also seen that

Exhibits P3 to P5 were produced by the petitioners along with their

written statement. If petitioners have an apprehension that Exhibits P3

to P5 produced by them are not admissible in evidence, there are

provisions in the Indian Evidence Act stating how secondary evidence

can be let in. The remedy of the petitioners are not by serving

interrogatories. I do not find anything illegal or irregular in Exhibit P10

order.

This writ petition is therefore dismissed.

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE

scm