IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15996 of 2008(D)
1. S.RAMAK5RISHNA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :29/05/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
...........................................
WP(C).No.15996 OF 2008
............................................
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF MAY, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.118 of 2006 on the file of
Munsiff Court, Kasargod. He filed Ext.P1 petition(I.A.587 of
2008) for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to produce two
documents contending that they are relevant and necessary for
disposal of the suit. Along with the petition, he produced a
certified copy of a patta issued from the file sought to be
summoned as first document. Respondents filed Ext.P2
objection contending that the document produced is not the
certified copy of the patta issued by them and there is no file as
sought to be summoned under document No.1. With regard to
second document, it was contended that document is not in their
custody and was produced before the court in O.S.371 of 2004 as
per order in I.A.1226 of 2005. Learned Munsiff dismissed the
petition under Ext.P3 order. This petition is filed under Article
227 of Constitution of India challenging the order.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner is heard. The
argument of learned counsel is that court below should not have
found that the document produced along with the petition is a
WP(C)15996 OF 2008 2
forged certified copy and that is a question to be decided in the
suit. Learned counsel also submitted that as far as second
document is concerned, trial court should have directed
respondents to get the document returned from the court and
produce the same as sought for.
3. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any
illegality or irregularity in Ext.P3 order. First document sought
to be summoned is a file. Respondents in their counter
contended that there is no such file. In such circumstances,
finding of the trial court that respondents 1 and 2 cannot be
directed to produce the first document is perfectly correct. True,
the question whether document produced is forged or not should
not have been decided in the application. If the petitioner
persists with the genuineness of the said document at the time of
evidence, it is a matter which is to be considered at that stage.
As far as second document is concerned, when it is submitted
that the document was produced in court in another
proceedings, court cannot direct respondents to produce them. If
at all remedy of the petitioner could only be to call for that
document. In such circumstances, writ petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
lgk/-