Meethal Saseendran v. Tharayil Peedikayil Abdulrahiman Haji

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/25TH JYAISHTA, 1937 OP(C).No. 1220 of 2014 (O) -------------------------------------- OS.NO.207/2013 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR ------------- PETITIONER(S):

---------------------- MEETHAL SASEENDRAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAN, RESIDING AT VISHAKH NIVAS, MAKRERI AMSOM, MUNDALORE DESOM, P.O.MUNDALORE, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA RESPONDENT(S):

-------------------------

1. THARAYIL PEEDIKAYIL ABDULRAHIMAN HAJI, AGED 73 YEARS, S/O. KUNHAHAMMED, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT ROSHINI MANZIL, CHIRAKKALKULAM WARD, KANNUR-670 003.

2. K.P.JYHOTHISH, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. BHASKARAN, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT KRISHNA KRIPA, SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

3. P.P.VENU FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN, ADVOCATE YOGASALA ROAD, KANNUR-1.

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.N.NAGARESH SRI.SHAJI THOMAS SRI.K.BABU SRI.BINU PAUL SRI.T.V.VINU R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

PJ

OP(C).No. 1220 of 2014 (O) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1 :

COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.207/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR.

P2 :

COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER. P3 :

COPY OF THE PETITION IN IA NO.689/2014 IN OS NO.207/2013. P4 :

COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.4.4.2014 IN IA NO.689/2014 IN OS NO.207/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL.

/ TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` O.P.(C) No.1220 of 2014 ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 15th day of June, 2015

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ It seems that Ext.P4 application was filed before the court below seeking the production of a document by the Kannur Municipality. According to the petitioner, he wanted to get the document produced to obtain the admitted signature of the plaintiff in the files of the Municipality, for the purpose of comparison of the same with his specimen signature and the disputed signature. The court below has dismissed the IA through Ext.P4 order by observing that the purpose for which the production of the document was not mentioned in the IA and further that the petitioner could have applied for a certified copy of the document from the

OPC.1220/2014 : 2 :

Municipality.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

3.

The learned counsel for the respondent has also pointed out that the purpose for which the document was called for was not made clear in Ext.P4 application. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the disputed signature in the case has to be compared with the specimen signature as well as the admitted signature. It is the case of the petitioner that the original signature of the plaintiff is available in the said files of the Municipality. Whatever it is, this Court below could not be found fault with in dismissing Ext.P4 application on the ground that the purpose for which the same was called for was not made clear in Ext.P4 application. Of course, Ext.P4 order shall not stand in the way of the petitioner to file a fresh application showing the specific purpose before the court below for the production of such a document. In case such application is

OPC.1220/2014 : 3 :

filed, of course, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to file counter and to challenge the same.

With the said observations, this OP(Civil) is closed. Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE) aks/15/06 // True Copy // PA to Judge