A.Vishwanatha Kamath vs K.Krishna
2021 Latest Caselaw 22422 Ker

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
         TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                           OP(C) NO. 1559 OF 2020
  AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 1/2020 IN OS 82/2016 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S
                              COURT, KASARAGOD


PETITIONER (PETITIONER IN IA & PLAINTIFF IN OS):

             C.VISHWANATHA KAMATH
             AGED 53 YEARS
             S/O JAGANATHA KAMATH, RESIDING NEAR S.V.D CROSS ROAD,
             P.O.KASARAGOD, KASABA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND
             DISTRICT,PIN-671 121.
             BY ADVS.
             PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH
             SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR
             SMT.VANDANA MENON
             SRI.VIMAL VIJAY
             SHRI.RESHMA T.R.


RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENTS IN IA/ DEFENDANTS IN OS):

     1       K.KRISHNA
             AGED 64 YEARS
             S/O CHOYI KUNHITHOTTI, RESIDING AT CHALIL HOUSE, PERIYA
             POST, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 316.

     2       RAJESH K.V,
             AGED 50 YEARS
             S/O K.V.GOPALAN, RESIDING AT VISHAKHAM OF KUTTAPUNA PANALYAL
             VILLAGE, MAILATTY POST, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DIST,
             PIN-671 319.

     3       SUGUNAN K.V,
             AGED 50 YEARS
             S/O K.V.KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT KUTTAPUNA PANALYAL VILLAGE,
             MAILATTY POST, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DIST, PIN-671 319.

     4       UMESHA K,
             AGED 51 YEARS
             S/O PURUSHOTHAMAN, RESIDING AT THALANGARA CLUSTER
             SAUPARNIKA, NULLIPADY OF KASARAGOD KASABA VILLAGE AND POST,
             KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN-671 121.
 OP(C) NO. 1559 OF 2020
                                     2

      5       ANITHAKUMARI K.V,
              AGED 52 YEARS,
              W/O K. KRISHNA AND D/O KUNHAMBU K, RESIDING AT KUTTAPUNA
              PANALYAL VILLAGE, MAILATTY POST, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD
              DIST, PIN-671 319

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.S.JIJI
              SMT.M.M.BABY



      THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP(C) NO. 1559 OF 2020
                                          3




                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 09th day of November, 2021

The challenge in this original petition is against

Ext.P8 order declining the petitioner's application

seeking production of documents for the purpose of

comparison of the first respondent's signature.

2. In the suit for recovery of advance amount

paid under a sale agreement, the first respondent took

up a contention that no sale agreement was executed

between the parties. Thereupon, the petitioner moved

an application seeking comparison of the first

respondent's signature in the sale agreement with his

signatures in other documents. The prayer was allowed

by the trial court and the documents sent for

comparison. After comparison, the expert sent a report

pointing out that the materials made available are not

sufficient for the purpose of comparison and the

documents pertaining to the relevant period should be

made available.

OP(C) NO. 1559 OF 2020

3. Thereupon, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of

2020 seeking an order requiring the first respondent to

produce certain documents for the purpose of

comparison. The I.A. is rejected by the trial court for the

reason that the sale agreement is of the year 2013,

whereas the documents sought to be produced are of

the year 2017.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the court below could not have rejected

the application on the premise that the documents

sought to be produced are not of the relevant period,

since it is for the expert to decide whether the

signatures in the documents are comparable. The

learned Counsel for the respondent contended that

some of the documents are in the possession of

respondents 2 to 4 and the first respondent should not

be compelled to produce those documents.

5. Having heard the learned Counsel on either

side, I find force in the submission of the learned

Counsel for the petitioner that the trial court should

have left the question whether the documents can be OP(C) NO. 1559 OF 2020

utilised for the purpose of comparison to the expert,

rather than rejecting the application at the threshold.

6. In the result, the impugned order is set aside

and I.A.No.1 of 2020 is allowed, leaving it open for the

trial court to decide as to which all documents are to be

produced by the first respondent, after affording

opportunity of hearing to the parties.

The Original Petition is disposed of, with the above

directions.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE NB/9-11 OP(C) NO. 1559 OF 2020

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1559/2020

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN OS 82/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, KASARAGOD DATED 22.1.2016

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 5.11.2013

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT IN OS 82/2016 FILED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20.6.2016

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF IA 1/2020 IN OS 82/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, KSARAGOD DATED 17.8.2020

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER FILED BY RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 IN IA NO 1/2020 IN OS NO 82/2016 ON THE FILE OF ADDL MUNSIFF COURT, KASARAGOD DATED 19.8.2020

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 2,3 AND 4 DATED 3.2.2020 IN OS NO 82/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, KASARAGOD

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN RECEIPT DATED 9.9.2020

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.9.2020 IN IA 1/2020 IN OS NO 82/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, KASARAGOD

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

True Copy P.A to Judge