E.R. Toy vs P.F. Shaji
2021 Latest Caselaw 20035 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
      FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 2ND ASWINA, 1943
                          OP(C) NO. 1365 OF 2021
   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 363/2013 OF II ADDITIONAL SUB
                             COURT,ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/S/DEFENDANT:

           E.R. TOY,
           AGED 51 YEARS
           ENAPPUZHA HOUSE, NEAR GIRINAGAR FIRE STATION, ELAMKULAM,
           KOCHI -17.

           BY ADV AYPE JOSEPH



RESPONDENT/S/PLAINTIFF:

           P.F. SHAJI,
           PULITHARA HOUSE, PULITHARA HOUSE, PONNARIMANGALAM,
           MULAVUKAD POST 682 504.

           BY ADVS.
           ABRAHAM P.GEORGE
           M.SANTHY




     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.09.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP(C) NO. 1365 OF 2021
                                 2




                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order passed by

the 2nd Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam in I.A.No.2/2021 in

O.S.No.363 of 2013. The interlocutory application was filed

by the petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit seeking a

direction to compel the plaintiff to produce certain

documents. According to the petitioner, those documents

are relevant for proving that the plaintiff did not have the

financial capacity to advance the amount as claimed by him.

2. On an earlier occasion, the court below had

dismissed the I.A. and the order was challenged before this

Court. Finding that the order did not contain any reasons,

the original petition was allowed and the court below was

directed to re-consider the application and to pass a OP(C) NO. 1365 OF 2021

reasoned order. Accordingly, Ext.P4 order has been passed.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that

the reasons stated in Ext.P4 are factually incorrect and

hence, the order is liable to be set aside. Learned Counsel for

the respondent contended that the order warrants no

interference and it has been rendered after taking into

consideration all relevant facts and circumstances.

4. Having perused the order, I find that the trial court

has stated the reasons for dismissing the interlocutory

application. Being so, this Court will not be justified in

interfering with the order even if there are minor mistakes in

the order, since the High court is not expected to intervene

and correct such mistakes in exercise of the supervisory

power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The Original Petition is hence dismissed, without

expressing anything on merits and leaving it open for the OP(C) NO. 1365 OF 2021

parties to raise their contentions before the trial court.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

RK OP(C) NO. 1365 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1365/2021

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. 2/2021 IN OS. 363/2013.

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

363/2013.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT R1(a) THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 04.04.2012 EXECUTED BY THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT ALONG WITH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 15.01.2013

EXHIBIT R1(b) THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PLAINTIFF TO DEFENDANT DATED 02.04.2013

EXHIBIT R1(c) THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 24.04.2013

EXHIBIT R1(d) THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF DATED 03.08.2021