E.R.Toy vs P.F.Shaji
2021 Latest Caselaw 14060 Ker

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                         PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
 WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1943
                  OP(C) NO. 785 OF 2021
          OS 363/2013 OF II ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,
                         ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/S:

         E.R.TOY
         AGED 51 YEARS
         ENAPPUSHA HOUSE, NEAR GIRINAGAR FIRE STATION,
         ELAMKULAM, KOCHI 17.
         BY ADV AYPE JOSEPH


RESPONDENT/S:

         P.F.SHAJI
         S/O. FRANCIS, PULITHARA HOUSE, PULITHARA HOUSE,
         PONNARIMANGALAM, MULAVUKAD POST 682 504.
         BY ADV ABRAHAM P.GEORGE


THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

07.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED

THE FOLLOWING:
 O.P.(C) No.785 of 2021
                                         2



                                   JUDGMENT

Dated this the 07th day of July, 2021

The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.363

of 2013 on the files of the IInd Additional Sub

Court, Ernakulam. The suit is filed by the

respondent herein seeking a decree for realisation

of an amount of Rs.13,34,054/- from the

petitioner. The petitioner has filed written

statement refuting the averments in the plaint and

contending that he had received an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/-. According to the petitioner, the

additional amount of Rs.8,00,000/- is claimed on

the basis of an endorsement obtained from him

fraudulently on blank paper. In his attempt to

prove that the respondent did not have the

capacity to raise the amount of Rs.13,00,000/-,

the petitioner had, during the cross-examination

of the respondent, put a question whether the

respondent was willing to produce copy of pan O.P.(C) No.785 of 2021

card, passbook, income tax returns, salary

certificate etc. The respondent having answered in

the affirmative, petitioner filed I.A.No.2 of 2021

seeking production of those documents. By Ext.P4,

the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the

interlocutory application finding the plea to be

devoid of merit. Hence, this original petition.

2. Sri.Aype Joseph, learned Counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the documents are

relevant so far as the petitioner's defence is

concerned and that the impugned order is bad for

non-application of mind and absence of reasons.

3. Sri.Abraham P.George, learned counsel for

the respondent submitted that the attempt of the

petitioner is to protract the proceedings

endlessly. It is pointed out that the suit is of

the year 2013 and it was thrice decreed ex-parte.

The trial having begun finally, the frivolous

petitions are being filed to stall the O.P.(C) No.785 of 2021

proceedings. According to the learned Counsel,

the documents which are sought to be produced are

not relevant for deciding the suit and the trial

court had rightly dismissed the application.

4. Having gone through the impugned order, I

am constrained to set aside the same for total

absence of reasons that had prompted the learned

Sub Judge to reject the application. As has been

repeatedly held by the Apex Court, a reasoned

order is a requirement of law.

In the result, Ext.P4 order is set aside. The

learned Sub Judge shall reconsider I.A.No.2 of

2021 and pass fresh orders thereon, within two

weeks of receipt of copy of this judgment, after

affording an opportunity of hearing to the

parties.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/07.07.2021 O.P.(C) No.785 of 2021

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 785/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN OS 363/2013. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT IN OS 363/2013.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF PETITION IN IA. 2/2201 IN OS. 363/2013.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN IA 2/2021 IN OS.

363/2013.