Sanooj vs Sai Sindhu Traders
2022 Latest Caselaw 11496 Ker

OP(C) NO. 2436 OF 2022
                                    1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
 FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
                        OP(C) NO. 2436 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 698/2019 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
                             COURT, PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/S:

            SANOOJ
            AGED 40 YEARS
            S/O RAJAPPAN, KUTTIRAMKUNNU HOUSE, PERUVAMBU P.O,
            PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678531
            BY ADVS.
            ANAND KALYANAKRISHNAN
            C.DHEERAJ RAJAN


RESPONDENT/S:

            SAI SINDHU TRADERS
            REPRESENTED BY IT PROPRIETRIX SINDHU, AGED 47 YEARS,
            W/O PURUSHOTHAMAN, SANTHI, SEKHARIPURAM, KALPATHY,
            PALAKKAD DISTRICT , PIN - 678003
     THIS    OP    (CIVIL)    HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
09.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP(C) NO. 2436 OF 2022
                                  2

                         JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by Ext.P4 order passed in I.A.No.2582/2022

by the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Palakkd, the

defendant in the suit has filed the original petition. The

respondent is the plaintiff in the suit.

2. The facts leading to Ext.P4 order, in brief, are: the

respondent has filed the suit against the petitioner for

realisation of an amount of Rs.90,180/- with interest. The

petitioner has resisted the suit by filing Ext.P2 written

statement. The parties went to trial. The respondent was

examined as PW1 and the petitioner was examined as

DW1. After the cross examination of the petitioner, he filed

IA.No.2582/2022 (Ext.P3) to summon the Manager of Zara

shopping complex to produce the lease deed pertaining to

Sreelakshmi Silks and to give evidence as a witness. The

court below, by the impugned Ext.P4 order, has dismissed

Ext.P3 application. Ext.P4 is illegal, improper and OP(C) NO. 2436 OF 2022

irregular. Hence, the original petition.

3. Heard; Sri.Anand Kalyanakrishnan, the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner.

4. The point is whether there is illegality in Ext.P4

order.

5. Ext.P1 plaint was filed on 21.11.2019. The

petitioner filed his written statement on 17.01.2020.

6. The case of the respondent in Ext.P1 plaint is that

the petitioner used to purchase textiles from the

respondent on credit. The respondent is maintaining a

running account with respect to the transaction. As per the

accounts a total amount of Rs.1,29,624/- was due from the

petitioner to the respondent, but the petitioner has paid

only Rs.39,444/-. Therefore, a balance amount of

Rs.90,180/- is due from the petitioner to the respondent.

The suit is filed against the petitioner in his individual

capacity as the proprietor of 'Sreelakshmi Silks'. The OP(C) NO. 2436 OF 2022

petitioner has denied the transaction.

7. The suit was listed for trial, and the respondent was

examined as PW1 and the petitioner was examined as

DW1.

8. The petitioner has in unequivocal terms deposed in

his cross-examination that GST registration of the

proprietorship concern is in his name.

9. It is after the cross-examination of the petitioner

that he has thought to summon the Manager of Zara

Shopping Complex to produce the lease deed of

Sreelakshmi Textiles. The court below, by the impugned

Ext.P4 order has dismissed the application on the ground

that it is highly belated and that the petitioner himself has

admitted that GST registration was in his name.

The initial onus of proof to prove the transaction is on

the respondent. The petitioner has denied the transaction.

Therefore, I do not find any necessity in allowing Ext.P3 OP(C) NO. 2436 OF 2022

application, which is highly belated and filed at the fag end

of the trial, with an intention to protract the determination

of the suit. The court below has not overstepped its

authority in passing Ext.P4 order. There is no error in

Ext.P4 order, warranting interference by this Court under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The original

petition fails and is hence dismissed.

sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rkc/09.12.22 OP(C) NO. 2436 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2436/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S 698/2019 ON THE FILES OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, PALAKKAD Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN DATED 17.01.2020 Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF I.A 2582/2022 IN O.S 698/2019 ON THE FILES OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, PALAKKAD DATED 15.11.2022 Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2022 IN I.A 2582/2022 IN O.S 698/2019 ON THE FILES OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, PALAKKAD