IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 15TH POUSHA, 1942
OP(C).No.1516 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 1/2020 IN OS 118/2010 DATED 25-09-2020
OF I ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, TRIVANDRUM
-----
PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT:
SIVARAJAN
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. ABHIMANUE, SALI BHAVAN, CHERUVATTIYOORKONAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.G.ARUN (K/795/2004)
SMT.V.JAYA RAGI
SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN (KAMBISSERIL)
SRI.NEERAJ NARAYAN
RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
SANTHOSH KUMAR
S/O. JOSEPH, KODUVACHITHALAKKAL PUTHEN VEEDU,
PUNNATHANATHU MURI, VILAPPIL VILLAGE, VILAPPILSALA
P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695543.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.THIRUMALA P.K.MANI
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.01.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN, J.
==================
O. P. (C) No.1516 of 2020
==================
Dated this the 5th day of January, 2021
JUDGMENT
I.A. No.1 of 2020 was filed by the petitioner- defendant in OS 118/2010 pending before the First Additional Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking reception of witness schedule and documents. The application was allowed in so far as the prayer for reception of witness schedule was concerned, but was rejected in so far as it relates to reception of documents. Aggrieved by the order in so far as it rejected the prayer for reception of documents, this original petition is filed by the defendant.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The suit as amended is one for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The claim of the plaintiff is on the strength of a sale deed executed by the defendant in his favour. The contention of the defendant is that the document O. P. (C) No.1516 of 2020 -: 2 :- executed by him in favour of the plaintiff was only as a security for loan transaction and was not intended or operative as a sale.
4. The trial in the suit commenced on 02.03.2020, and the evidence of the plaintiff is over. It is thereafter that the defendant filed the present application seeking reception of witness schedule as well as documents. The court was of the opinion that the documents produced have no relevance with reference to the pleadings. The court also took note of the prior conduct of the defendant in getting the suit adjourned on several occasions and of the fact that the suit is of the year 2010, and dismissed the application.
5. The documents sought to be produced, apparently seem to relate to the possession of the property by the defendant. The defendant has a contention that in spite of the execution of the document in question styled as "sale deed", he continued in possession of the property. Be that as it may, any evidence adduced without any pleadings would not be of any avail to any of the parties. O. P. (C) No.1516 of 2020 -: 3 :- Whether the evidence adduced is relevant, acceptable and is founded on necessary pleadings are all matters to be considered by the court at the time of final hearing. While it is true that the defendant-petitioner should have been more vigilant in conducting the case, it is only just and equitable that the parties be given a fair opportunity of trial which includes opportunity to adduce evidence. It is only proper that the petitioner-defendant be permitted to produce the documents as sought for. The inconvenience caused to the respondent-plaintiff can be compensated by way of costs.
In the result, this original petition is allowed. Ext.P6 order in so far as it rejected the prayer to accept the documents will stand set aside and the application IA 1/2020 will stand allowed on condition that the petitioner pays to the counsel appearing for the respondent before this Court an amount of `2,500/- as costs, on or before 08.01.2021. Trial of the suit shall continue. I make it clear that I have not expressed anything on O. P. (C) No.1516 of 2020 -: 4 :- the merits of the case or regarding the relevancy or otherwise of the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner-defendant.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN JUDGE kns/-
//True Copy// P.S. to Judge OP(C).No.1516 OF 2020 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED PLAINT IN O.S.NO.118 OF 2010 ON THE FILES OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANT IN O.S.NO.118 OF 2010 ON THE FILES OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.1 OF 2020 IN O.S.NO.118 OF 2010 ON THE FILES OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P4 THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ALONG WITH EXT.P3.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN LIEU OF CHIEF EXAMINATION FILED BY THE DEFENDANT IN O.S.NO.118 OF 2010 ON THE FILES OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY FIRST
ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN O.S.NO.118 OF 2010 DATED 25.09.2020.
-----