Biju K.Peter vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 556 Ker

                                                          'CR'
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
 FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 24TH POUSHA, 1943
                    CRL.MC NO. 7386 OF 2018
   AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.06.2018 IN CMP 174/2016 OF
        JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOLENCHERRY
         OS.NO.77/2015 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOLENCHERRRY
PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

           BIJU K.PETER, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.DN, K.P. PETER,
           KUNNATHU HOUSE, KINGINIMATTOM, KOLENCHERY-682311.

           BY ADVS.
           PAUL K.VARGHESE
           SMT.A.A.GEETHA


RESPONDENTS/ DE FACTO COMPLAINANAT:

    1      STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
           HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

    2      ROY ABRAHAM, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O ABRAHAM,
           THAMARACHALIL HOUSE, THAMMANIMATTOM KARA,
           KARUKAPPILLY P.O.KOLENCHERY-682 311.

           BY ADVS.
           SRI.M.B.SANDEEP
           SMT.R.PRIYA
           SRI.B.SURJITH
           SMT.SHERIN VARGHESE
           SRI.M.J.KIRANKUMAR,
           SMT.C LEENA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 05.01.2022, ALONG WITH CRL.REV.PET.1708/2018, THE COURT
ON 14.01.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.R.P.No.1708 of 2018
          &
Crl.M.C.No.7386 of 2018

                               2




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
   FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 24TH POUSHA, 1943
                  CRL.REV.PET NO. 1708 OF 2018
    AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 174/2016 DATED 27.06.2018 OF
        JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOLENCHERRY
REVISION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 8:

    1      K.A THAMPI, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O.ABRAHAM,
           KUNNATH VEETIL, KINGINIMATTOM KARA,
           AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE.

    2      BIJU.K.PETER, S/O.K.P.PETER, AGED 52 YEARS,
           KUNNATHU VEETIL, KINGINIMATTOM KARA,
           AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE.

    3      N.P.GEORGE, S/O.PATHROSE, AGED 67 YEARS,
           NELLIKKATTU VEETIL, KINGINIMATTOM KARA,
           AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE.

    4      PAUL P KUNNATH, S/O.PAULOSE, AGED 82 YEARS,
           KUNNATHU VEETIL KINGINIMATTOM KARA,
           AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE.

    5      PAULOSE P KUNNATH
           S/O.PATHROSE, AGED 83 YEARS, KUNNATHU VEETIL,
           KINGINIMATTOM KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE.

    6      ANI BEN, S/O.PAULOSE P.KUNNATH, AGED 38 YEARS,
           KUNNATHU VEETIL, KINGINIMATTOM KARA,
           AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE.
 Crl.R.P.No.1708 of 2018
          &
Crl.M.C.No.7386 of 2018

                                3


    7      MATHEW PAUL,
           S/O.PAUL, AGED 55 YEARS, KUNNATHU VEETIL,
           KINGINIMATTOM KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE.

    8      ROY THOMAS,
           S/O.THOMAS, AGED 65 YEARS, KUNNATHU VEETIL,
           KINGINIMATTOM KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE.

           BY ADV PAUL K.VARGHESE



RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

    1      STATE OF KERALA
           REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
           HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

    2      ROY, S/O.ABRAHAM AGED 52 YEARS,
           THAMARACHALIL HOUSE, THAMMANIMATTAM KARA,
           AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE-682308.

           BY ADVS.
           SRI.M.B.SANDEEP
           SMT.R.PRIYA
           SRI.M.J.KIRANKUMAR




THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.01.2022,   ALONG   WITH   CRL.MC.7386/2018,   THE   COURT   ON
14.01.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.R.P.No.1708 of 2018
          &
Crl.M.C.No.7386 of 2018

                                        4




                                                                          'CR'



                           SOPHY THOMAS, J.
         -------------------------------------------------
                     Crl.R.P.No.1708 of 2018
                                &
                     Crl.M.C.No.7386 of 2018
         -------------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 14th day of January, 2022

                                O R D E R

Above Crl.R.P has been filed by the accused persons

(eight in number) in C.M.P No.174 of 2016 of JFCM,

Kolenchery, under Section 401 of Cr.P.C to set aside the

impugned order of taking cognizance and issuing summons,

and to dismiss the same with costs.

2. The petitioners' case in short is as follows:

They belong to Kunnathu family and they are age old and

sick and they are well reputed persons in that locality.

On 26.02.2016, the 2nd respondent filed a private

complaint against the petitioners, alleging that on Crl.R.P.No.1708 of 2018 & Crl.M.C.No.7386 of 2018

02.12.2015 they trespassed into the cemetery of St.Peters

and St.Pauls Church, Kolenchery, destroyed tombstones

fixed in the tomb of his family members causing damages

to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.

3. The cemetery belongs to St.Peters and St.Pauls

Church and more than 130 members of petitioners' family

are members of that Parish. A specific area is there in

the cemetery of the Church, where tombs of petitioners'

family is situated. In fact the 2 nd respondent damaged a

portion of the petitioners' family tombs, for which they

have filed O.S No.77 of 2015 before Munsiff Court,

Kolenchery seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory

injunction and such other reliefs. The Advocate

Commissioner visited the suit property twice and filed

reports. Only to bypass the situation and to defend the

civil case, after a lapse of more than two months, 2 nd

respondent filed a private complaint against these

petitioners, who are senior citizens retired from Crl.R.P.No.1708 of 2018 & Crl.M.C.No.7386 of 2018

responsible posts and ailing from various illnesses. The

case is purely civil in nature. There is nothing to prove

the ingredients of Sections 427 and 379 of IPC as against

these petitioners. The Church in question was closed for

long and it is under the custody and surveillance of

Police. So, the offence as alleged was not possible or

probable. The 2nd respondent has no locus standi to file

this complaint. Since the petitioner are age old and

sick, there is no possibility for them to travel long

distance to reach the cemetery and to destroy the

tombstones fixed in the tombs of respondent-family

members. The learned Magistrate without considering the

real state of affairs simply took cognizance against the

petitioners under Sections 427 and 379 of IPC and hence

it is liable to be set aside.

4. The 2nd petitioner in Crl.R.P 1708 of 2018 filed

Crl.M.C.No.7386 of 2018 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to

quash the proceedings in C.M.P No.174 of 2016, invoking Crl.R.P.No.1708 of 2018 & Crl.M.C.No.7386 of 2018

inherent power of this Court. Since the very same

petitioner is the 2 nd petitioner in Crl.R.P. 1708 of 2018,

the Crl.M.C need not be dealt with separately.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, 2 nd

respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. In this Crl.R.P, this Court is asked to exercise

its revisional powers under Section 401 of Cr.P.C to set

aside the order in C.M.P 174 of 2016 of JFCM, Kolenchery.

According to the petitioners, they are age old and sick,

and retired from respectable posts, and there was no

probability for them to reach the cemetery of St.Pauls

and St. Peters Church, Kolenchery to remove the

tombstones from the tombs of the family members of the 2 nd

respondent. According to them, on 07.12.2015, the 2 nd

respondent assaulted the 8 th petitioner Sri.Roy Thomas and

a criminal case was registered against him as Crime

No.140 of 2016. On 08.12.2016, the 2 nd respondent

destroyed the family tombs of the petitioners namely Crl.R.P.No.1708 of 2018 & Crl.M.C.No.7386 of 2018

Kunnathu family. Since the dispute was civil in nature,

they filed O.S No.77 of 2015 against the 2 nd respondent

and two others, for injunction and other consequential

reliefs. The 2nd respondent alleging destruction of

tombstones of his family members, filed O.S No.6 of 2016

against these petitioners and both suits were tried

together and O.S No.77 of 2017 was decreed and O.S No.6

of 2016 was dismissed. In O.S No.77 of 2017, the

Commissioner inspected the cemetery on 17.12.2015 with

notice to the 2nd respondent, and filed report noting

damages caused to the family tomb of the petitioners.

C.M.P No.174 of 2016 was filed by the 2 nd respondent

alleging destruction and removal of tombstones from his

family tomb, on 02.12.2015. If it was so, when the

Commissioner inspected the property on 17.12.2015 after

giving notice to him, he should have brought that fact to

the notice of the Commissioner. But, nothing was reported

by the Commissioner in the report dated 17.12.2015 Crl.R.P.No.1708 of 2018 & Crl.M.C.No.7386 of 2018

regarding destruction or removal of tombstones from the

family tomb of the 2nd respondent. Very same Commissioner

inspected the property on 01.01.2016 on the request of

the defendants. In that report the Commissioner has

reported that two tombstones were seen removed and it was

lying on the floor.

7. In the order of the learned Magistrate taking

cognizance against these petitioners it is stated that no

prima facie evidence is there to attract the offences

alleged under Sections 153, 295A, 297 and 120B, but there

is prima facie evidence to attract offences punishable

under Sections 427 and 379 of IPC against the accused and

so, cognizance was taken against them for those offences

and summons was ordered. On going through the statement

of witnesses recorded during Sec.202 enquiry, CW2 stated

that on 02.12.2015, three persons entered the symmetry

and destroyed the tombstones. CW3 stated that the workers

of Kunnathu family removed the tombstones. The 2 nd Crl.R.P.No.1708 of 2018 & Crl.M.C.No.7386 of 2018

respondent/complainant stated that the accused persons

using pick-axe, iron bar etc. removed the tombstones,

causing loss of Rs.10,000/-.

8. The petitioners pointed out before Court that 4 th

petitioner and 5th petitioner were aged more than 80, 1 st

petitioner was 74, and petitioners 3 and 8 were senior

citizens. They produced medical records to show that the

1st petitioner and 5th petitioner were Cardiac patients and

3rd petitioner was suffering from Benign Prostatic

Hypertrophy, Bulbar Uretheral Stricture, Diabetes

Mellitus, Astma etc. According to them, the petitioners

were holding responsible posts and after retirement due

to old age and ailments they were taking rest at their

respective houses, and by filing a false complaint, the

2nd respondent dragged them into court.

9. None of the witnesses including the complainant

spoke about the presence of any of the petitioners in

the scene of the occurrence, or about the overtacts if Crl.R.P.No.1708 of 2018 & Crl.M.C.No.7386 of 2018

any committed by them. According to them, since the

petitioners filed Civil case against the second

respondent and others for damaging the family tomb of

Kunnathu family, after a lapse of about 2 months, second

respondent filed a false complaint implicating

respectable elders of Kunnathu family, without any

factual basis.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended

that without realsing the materials and facts in its

correct perspective, learned Magistrate took cognizance

of the offence and issued summons against the

petitioners. Relying on a decision of the Apex Court in

M/S. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr v. Special Judicial

Magistrate & Ors. (1998 KHC 1055), the petitioners would

contend that "Summoning of an accused in a criminal case

is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into

motion as a matter of course. it is not that the

complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support Crl.R.P.No.1708 of 2018 & Crl.M.C.No.7386 of 2018

his allegations in the complaint, to have the criminal

law set into motion. The order of the magistrate

summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied

his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable

thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made

in the complaint and the evidence both oral and

documentary in support thereof, and would that be

sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing

charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate

is a silent spectator at the time of recording of

preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused.

Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence

brought on record and may even himself put questions to

the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to

find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise

and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed

by all or any of the accused ".

11. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed Crl.R.P.No.1708 of 2018 & Crl.M.C.No.7386 of 2018

out that the impugned order will not say who all

committed the offences alleged, how they committed, or

the manner in which they committed the offences. Even

when the witnesses examined did not utter a word

regarding the physical presence of these petitioners at

the scene of crime, learned magistrate decided to proceed

against them. Obviously he did not apply his mind before

taking cognizance and issuing summons against the

petitioners.

12. The petitioners relied upon another decision of

the Apex Court Mehmood Ul Rehman vs Khazir Mohammad Tunda

and Ors. [2015 KHC 2763] to say that the Magistrate is

not expected to act as a post office in taking cognizance

of each and every complaint filed before him, and issue

process as a matter of course. There must be sufficient

indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he

is satisfied that the allegations in the complaint

constitute an offence, and when considered along with Crl.R.P.No.1708 of 2018 & Crl.M.C.No.7386 of 2018

the statements recorded, and the result of the enquiry

or report of investigation under section 202 of Cr.P.C if

any the accused is answerable before the Criminal Court,

and there is ground for proceeding against the accused

under Section 204 of Cr.P.C by issuing process for

appearance.

13. The legal position is well-settled that, when a

prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed,

the test to be applied by the court is, as to whether the

uncontroverted allegations as made, prima facie establish

the offence. It is also for the court to take into

consideration any special features which appear in a

particular case to consider whether it is expedient and

in the interest of justice, to permit a prosecution to

continue. This is so, on the basis that the Court cannot

be utilised for any oblique purpose, and where, in the

opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction

are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to Crl.R.P.No.1708 of 2018 & Crl.M.C.No.7386 of 2018

be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue.

{see Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Others v. Sambhajirao

Chandrojirao Angre and Ors. (AIR 1988 SC 709) and Sarala

P.U. v. Gopi and Another [2019 (3) KHC 424]}

14. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

that without establishing any prima faice case against

the petitioners, cognizance was taken and summons was

issued against them. They were all age old and

respectable members of Kunnathu family, leading retired

life and ailing from various illnesses. Pending Crl.R.P.,

petitioners 1 and 4 died as submitted by them. So in the

absence of prima facie evidence to prove their

involvement in an offence like 427 and 379 of IPC, the

chances of a conviction is bleak and so no useful purpose

will be served by allowing the criminal prosecution to

continue against them.

15. Going by the complaint filed by the second

respondent, the alleged incident occurred on 02.12.2015, Crl.R.P.No.1708 of 2018 & Crl.M.C.No.7386 of 2018

he filed that complaint only on 26.02.2016. The delay of

about 3 months is not at all explained by the second

respondent. Moreover the petitioners had filed O.S.No.77

of 2015 against the second respondent and others, for

destroying the tomb of Kunnathu family, and a commission

was also taken out, who examined the disputed cemetery on

17.12.2015. So only to escape from that Civil case, it

seems, the second respondent filed a criminal complaint

against senior members of Kunnathu family, much after the

Civil case, as an after thought.

16. The petitioners produced copy of common judgment

in O.S.No.77 of 2015 and O.S.No.6 of 2016, which will

show that one Mr.Paul and Thampi Jonson filed O.S.No.6 of

2016 against Kunnath Kudumbayogam and some of the

petitioners herein. Crime No.1494 of 2015 was registered

against the second respondent herein for assaulting one

Mr.George Thomas, Kunnathu house on 07.12.2015 in the

steps leading to the cemetery. O.S.No.77 of 2015 was Crl.R.P.No.1708 of 2018 & Crl.M.C.No.7386 of 2018

filed by the petitioners on 16.12.2015. Much after the

institution of the civil suit by the petitioners, the

complaint was filed by the second respondent before the

JFCM, Kolenchery. The fact that a civil suit was filed

from the side of the 2nd respondent also, on the same set

of facts alleged in the criminal compliant, is sufficient

to hold that the dispute is essentially civil in nature.

The allegation is that the petitioners committed mischief

by destroying and removing the tombstones in the

cemetery. Admittedly the cemetery belongs to the Church,

and either the petitioners or the respondent have no

proprietary right over that land, except to perform the

funeral rites and prayers. If any tortious act has been

committed by either party, their remedy is to get

compensation for the same, and both parties have

exercised that right by filing civil cases against each

other. The suit filed by the petitioners was decreed, and

the suit filed from the side of the respondent was Crl.R.P.No.1708 of 2018 & Crl.M.C.No.7386 of 2018

dismissed. In order to ascertain the bona fides of the

complainant the High Court can examine whether a matter

which is essentially civil in nature has been given the

cloak of a criminal offence. On going through the entire

facts and materials available, the ingredients required

to constitute a criminal offence is not made out against

the petitioners. Even their presence at the scene of

occurrence is not brought out through the enquiry

conducted by the learned magistrate. So the continuation

of the criminal proceedings against these petitioners

will be nothing but an abuse of process of court. So,

this Court is inclined to allow the revision petition,

setting aside the impugned order of taking cognizance and

issuing summons against these petitioners.

17. The second petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.1708 of

2018 filed Crl.M.C. No.7386 of 2018 to quash the

proceedings in CMP.No.174 of 2016 of JFCM Kolenchery

invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section Crl.R.P.No.1708 of 2018 & Crl.M.C.No.7386 of 2018

482 of Cr.P.C. Since, he has joined the Crl.R.P for

setting aside the order in CMP.No.174 of 2016, invoking

the revisional powers of this Court under Section 401 of

Cr.P.C. no separate relief need be granted in the

Crl.M.C. Since, taking cognizance and issuing summons

under Section 204 of Cr.P.C is not an interlocutory

order, is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the

High Court. The respondents also do not have a case that

the order in CMP.No.174 of 2016, taking cognizance and

issuing summons against the petitioners is an

interlocutory order to which the bar under Section 397

(2) of Cr.P.C applies. In Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande &

Ors. v. Uttam & Another [1999 (3) SCC 134], the Apex

Court held that, order of the Magistrate taking

cognizance and issuance of process is not an

interlocutory order and therefore, it is amenable to

revisional jurisdiction. Since, the petitioner in

Crl.M.C.No.7386 of 2018 has joined the Crl.R.P.No.1708 of Crl.R.P.No.1708 of 2018 & Crl.M.C.No.7386 of 2018

2018 for setting aside the order in CMP.No.174 of 2016,

the Crl.M.C is closed, as no separate relief is to be

granted in that petition.

Accordingly, Crl.M.C.No.7386 of 2018 is closed and

Crl.R.P.No.1708 of 2018 is allowed, setting aside the

impugned order in CMP.No.174 of 2016 on the file of JFCM,

Kolenchery. The petitioners are set at liberty cancelling

their bail bonds.

Sd/-

SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE

AS Crl.R.P.No.1708 of 2018 & Crl.M.C.No.7386 of 2018

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7386/2018

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE 1 A TRUE COPY OF CHARGE IN CC NO 140/2016 ON THE FILE OF JFCM COURT, KOLENCHERY DATED 21.12.2015

ANNEXURE 11 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO 77/2015 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOLENCHERY DATED 16.12.2015

ANNEXURE 111 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN IA NO 614/2015 IN OS NO 77/2015 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOLENCHERY DATED 19.12.2015

ANNEXURE IV A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN IA NO 11/2016 IN OS NO 77/2015 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOLENCHERY DATED 1.1.2016

ANNEXURE V A TRUE COPY OF THE CMP NO 174/2016 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLENCHERY DATED 26.2.2016

ANNEXURE VI A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO 174/2016 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLENCHERY DATED 27.6.2018 Crl.R.P.No.1708 of 2018 & Crl.M.C.No.7386 of 2018

APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 1708/2018

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE I A TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED BY MOSC MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KOLENCHERY TO THE 1ST PETITIONER K.A.THAMPI DATED 15/08/2016.

ANNEXURE II A TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED BY LAKESHORE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE, MARADU TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 27/09/2016.

ANNEXURE III A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY LAKESHORE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE, MARADU TO THE 1ST PETITIONER THAMPI DATED 05/11/2016.

ANNEXURE IV A TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY REPORT ISSUED BY LISIE HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM TO THE 4TH PETITIONER SRI.PAUL.P.KUNNATH ON 18/03/2017.

ANNEXURE V A TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED TO PAULOSE P.KUNNATH FROM AMRUTHA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE, ERNAKULAM DATED 28/05/2003.

ANNEXURE VI A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE AMRUTH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE, ERNAKULAM TO THE 5TH PETITIONER DATED 26/07/2018.

ANNEXURE VII A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE RAJAGIRI, CHUNANGAMVELLY HOSPITAL, ALUVA, TO THE 5TH PETITIONER Crl.R.P.No.1708 of 2018 & Crl.M.C.No.7386 of 2018

DATED 14/09/2018.

ANNEXURE VIII A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE LOURDES HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM TO SRI.N.P.GEORGE DATED 28/09/2017.

ANNEXURE IX A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.77/2015 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOLENCHERY DATED 16/12/2015.

ANNEXURE X A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN O.S.NO.77/2015 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOLENCHERY DATED 19/12/2015.

ANNEXURE XI A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN O.S.NO.77/2015 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOLENCHERY DATED 01/01/2016.

ANNEXURE XII A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.77/2015 AND O.S.NO.6/2016 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOLENCHERY DATED 03.08.2019

ANNEXURE XIII A TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S.NO.6/2016 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOLENCHERY DATED 03.08.2019.

ANNEXURE XIV A TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S.NO.77/2015 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOLENCHERY DATED 03.08.2019.