Sivarajan vs Santhosh Kumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 224 Ker

            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

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

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

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.

-----