Kerala High Court
Rekha Radhakrishnan vs Usha Ramakrishnan on 6 January, 2023
1
OP(C) No.1727 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 16TH POUSHA, 1944
OP(C) NO. 1727 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN IA 6/2022 IN OPELE 1/2021 OF MUNSIFF COURT, ADIMALI
PETITIONER/S:
REKHA RADHAKRISHNAN,AGED 47 YEARS
W/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, MANGALATHU PUTHENVEEDU,
DEVIYAR COLONY, VALARA.P.O., ADIMALY,
IDUKKI DISTRICT - PIN - 685561
BY ADVS.
SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
MARTINDAS V.JAMES (VATTAKKUZHIYIL)
AMJATH A.R
RESPONDENT/S:
1 USHA RAMAKRISHNAN,AGED 48 YEARS
W/O.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, RESIDING AT KOUSTHABAM HOUSE,
DEVIYAR COLONY, VALARA.P.O., ADIMALY,
IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 561
2 VIJI RADHAKRISHNAN,AGED 42 YEARS
W/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, PALLANADU, DEVIYAR COLONY, VALARA.P.O., ADIMALY,
IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 561, PIN - 685561
3 ANU RATHEESH KUMAR,AGED 32 YEARS
W/O.RATHEESH, DEVI VILASAM, DEVIYAR COLONY, VALARA.P.O., ADIMALY,
IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 561,
4 SABEENA ABDUL KHADER,AGED 33 YEARS
W/O.ABDUL KHADER, KOCHUKUDIYIL, DEVIYAR COLONY, VALARA.P.O., ADIMALY,
IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 561,
5 ANEES SHANTI,AGED 52 YEARS
W/O.SHANTI,CHELAPPURAM, DEVIYAR COLONY, VALARA.P.O., ADIMALY, IDUKKI
DISTRICT - 685 561,
BY ADV BABU PAUL- R1
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
OP(C) No.1727 of 2022
C.S DIAS,J.
---------------------------
OP(C) No.1727 of 2022
-----------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2023.
JUDGMENT
Confronted with Ext P14 order passed in IA
No.6/2022 in OP(Election) No.1/2021 by the Court of
the Munsiff, Adimaly, the first respondent in the
election petition has filed the original petition. The
respondents are the petitioner and respondents 2 to 5
before the court below.
2. The antecedent facts leading to Ext P14 order,
in a nutshell, are:
2.1. The first respondent has filed the election
petition challenging the election of the petitioner to
ward No.19 of Adimaly Grama Panchayat, held on
13.1.2021. The petitioner was the returned candidate
OP(C) No.1727 of 2022
and the first respondent had secured the next highest
number of votes.
2.2. The first respondent has alleged that four
voters had cast their votes in ward No.19 and other
constituencies in violation of the provisions of the
Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (in short, 'Act').
2.3. Later, by way of amendment of the election
petition, the first respondent has alleged that two more
voters have indulged in double voting. However, no
document has been produced to substantiate the
allegation in the election petition.
2.4. The petitioner has objected to the election
petition through Ext P2 written objection and Ext P3
additional objection filed to the amended original
petition.
OP(C) No.1727 of 2022
2.5. Although the court below had framed a
preliminary issue to decide whether there was non-
compliance with Sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section
89 of the Act, the court below held that the said issue is
to be decided after trial. The order was confirmed by
this Court by Ext P4 judgment in OP(C)No.261/2022.
2.6 At the instance of the first respondent, this
Court by judgment in O.P.(C)No.2169/2021 has
directed the court below to dispose of the election
petition within two months.
2.7. The first respondent had filed her proof
affidavit and was examined as PW1. Ext P6 is her
deposition. Thereafter, the first respondent filed
I.A.No.2/2022, to issue summons to witness No.7 for
producing the marked voters' list and the signed
registered voters' list of ward No.19. By Ext P7 order,
OP(C) No.1727 of 2022
the court below allowed the application. Nonetheless,
witness No.7 stated that the documents were not in his
custody, but with the Tahsildar, Devikulam.
Immediately, the court below ordered the Tahsildar,
Devikulam, to produce the documents.
2.8. The petitioner challenged Ext P7 order before
this Court in O.P (C)No.1069/2022, which was
dismissed by Ext P8 judgment.
2.9. Then, the first respondent filed IA No.4/2022
(Ext P9) to direct the District Collector, Idukki, to
produce certain documents. The petitioner objected to
the said application. The application was disposed of
by the court below.
2.10. The petitioner again filed IA No.5/2022 to
decide the question of maintainability as a preliminary
OP(C) No.1727 of 2022
issue. The court below dismissed the application by Ext
P10 order.
2.11. Thereafter, the first respondent filed IA
No.6/2022 (Ext P11), to issue summons to witness
Nos.1 to 5 - the custodians of the voters' list of the
respective constituencies - for the production of the
attested copies of the voters' list. The petitioner
objected to the said application by filing Ext P12
written objection and Ext P13 additional objection.
The court below, by the impugned Ext P14 order,
allowed Ext P11 application.
2.12. Ext P14 is patently wrong and unsustainable
in law. Hence the original petition.
3. Heard; Sri.Suman Chakravarthy, the learned
Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Babu Paul,
the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent.
OP(C) No.1727 of 2022
4. Despite notice being ordered to the respondents
2 to 5, the petitioner has not taken steps to effect
service of notice on the said respondents. The learned
Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, as
the respondents 2 to 5 are not appearing before the
court below, notice may be dispensed to them at the
risk of the petitioner. Accordingly, notice to the
respondents 2 to 5 were dispensed with and the
original petition was taken up for final consideration.
5. The short point is, is there is any illegality in
Ext P14 order warranting interference by this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. The power of superintendence of this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is well-
settled in a host of judicial pronouncements. The
earliest of the decisions on the point is the decision in
OP(C) No.1727 of 2022
Waryam Singh and another v. Amarnath and
another [AIR 1954 SC 215], wherein a five Judge
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
"12. This power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as
pointed out by Harries C.J., in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v. Sukumar
Mukherjee [AIR 1951 Cal 193], to be exercised most sparingly and
only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts
within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere
errors. xxx xxx xxx".
7. In Shalini Shyam Shetty & anr. V. Rajendra
Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329], the principles in
Waryam Singh have been reiterated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as follows:
"49. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court,
the following principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated:
(a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is
different from a petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of
power by the High Court under these two articles is also different.
(b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called
a writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on
High Courts is substantially different from the history of conferment
of the power of superintendence on the High Courts under Article
227 and have been discussed above.
OP(C) No.1727 of 2022
(c) High Courts cannot, at the drop of a hat, in exercise of
its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the
Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or courts
inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a court
of appeal over the orders of the court or tribunal subordinate to
it. In cases where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has
been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the
exercise of this power by the High Court.
(d) The parameters of interference by High Courts in exercise
of their power of superintendence have been repeatedly laid down by
this Court. In this regard the High Court must be guided by the
principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in
Waryam Singh [AIR 1954 SC 215] and the principles in Waryam
Singh [AIR 1954 SC 215] have been repeatedly followed by
subsequent Constitution Benches and various other decisions of
this Court.
(e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh [AIR 1954 SC
215] , followed in subsequent cases, the High Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in order only to keep the
tribunals and courts subordinate to it, "within the bounds of their
authority".
(f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and
courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not
declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them.
(g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High
Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence
when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the
tribunals and courts subordinate to it or where there has been a
gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of
natural justice have been flouted.
(h) In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court
cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just
because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or
courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the
jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised.
(i) The High Court's power of superintendence under Article
227 cannot be curtailed by any statute. It has been declared a part of
the basic structure of the Constitution by the Constitution Bench of
this Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC
OP(C) No.1727 of 2022
261 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 577] and therefore abridgment by a
constitutional amendment is also very doubtful.
(j) It may be true that a statutory amendment of a rather
cognate provision, like Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by
the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 does not and
cannot cut down the ambit of High Court's power under Article 227.
At the same time, it must be remembered that such statutory
amendment does not correspondingly expand the High Court's
jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227.
(k) The power is discretionary and has to be exercised on
equitable principle. In an appropriate case, the power can be
exercised suo motu.
(l) On a proper appreciation of the wide and unfettered power
of the High Court under Article 227, it transpires that the main
object of this article is to keep strict administrative and judicial
control by the High Court on the administration of justice within its
territory.
(m) The object of superintendence, both administrative and
judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of
the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it
into any disrepute. The power of interference under this article is
to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice
does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure
and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the
functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High
Court.
(n) This reserve and exceptional power of judicial
intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in
individual cases but should be directed for promotion of public
confidence in the administration of justice in the larger public
interest whereas Article 226 is meant for protection of
individual grievance. Therefore, the power under Article 227 may
be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial
discipline pointed out above.
(o) An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be
counterproductive and will divest this extraordinary power of its
strength and vitality.
OP(C) No.1727 of 2022
8. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/S
Garment Craft vs Prakash Chand Goel [(2022) 4
SCC 181] has held as follows:
"15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the
view that the impugned order [Prakash Chand Goel v. Garment
Craft, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11943] is contrary to law and cannot
be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from
the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article
227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising
supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to
reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the
determination under challenge is based. Supervisory
jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal
flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The
High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and
conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. [Celina
Coelho Pereira v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar, (2010) 1 SCC
217 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 69] The jurisdiction exercised is in the
nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of
duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or
justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in
appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify,
or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can
possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal
has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must
be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.
16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court
in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. [Estralla Rubber v. Dass
Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97] has observed : (SCC pp. 101-102,
para 6)
"6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction
by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of
this Court. The exercise of power under this article
involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts
OP(C) No.1727 of 2022
and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to
see that they do the duty expected or required of them in
a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any
unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or
wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction
of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this
power and interfering with the orders of the courts or
tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of
duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of
law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere,
a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well
settled that the High Court while acting under this Article
cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or
substitute its own judgment in place of that of the
subordinate court to correct an error, which is not
apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can
set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court
or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the
finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can
possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or
tribunal has come to."
9. The specific case of the first respondent in Ext
P1 election petition is that six persons have indulged in
double voting; therefore, the election of the petitioner
from ward No.19 is void, illegal and is liable to be set
aside.
OP(C) No.1727 of 2022
10. The petitioner has refuted the allegations in the
election petition through Exts P2 and P3 written
objections.
11. It is undisputed that the first respondent had
filed the witness list on 04.02.2022, at the pre-trial
stage, citing 10 witnesses.
12. The parties went to trial.
13. The first respondent filed Ext P5 chief
affidavit on 17.03.202 and she was cross-examined on
19.03.2022 as evidenced by Ext P6 deposition.
14. After the cross-examination of the first
respondent, she filed I.A No.2/2022, to issue summons
to witness No.7, to produce the marked voters' list and
signed the register of voters of the election to ward
No.19 and ward No.21 of the Adimaly Grama
Panchayat. By Ext P7 order, the court below allowed
OP(C) No.1727 of 2022
the application, and the said order was confirmed by
this Court by Ext P8 judgment.
15. Notwithstanding the fact that the court below
had rejected the petitioner's request to decide the
election petition on a preliminary issue by Ext P3 order,
and Ext P3 order being confirmed by Ext P4 judgment,
the petitioner again filed IA No.5/2022 for an identical
relief. By Ext P10 order, the court below dismissed the
said application.
16. After the passing of Ext P10 order, the first
respondent filed IA No.6/2022, to issue summons to
witnesses Nos.1 to 5, the custodians of the voters' list
of the persons who allegedly indulged in double voting
to produce the voters' list. The petitioner objected to
the said application through Exts P12 and P13
objections, inter alia, contending that the
OP(C) No.1727 of 2022
documents sought to be summoned are public
documents, that the first respondent has other modes to
prove the said documents, that it is without exhausting
the known remedies the petitioner has filed the
application, that the first respondent is in possession of
voters list of all the constituencies, that it was up to the
petitioner to have produced the documents at the pre-
trial stage and that the first respondent is attempting to
fish out evidence through the process of this Court.
17. The court below, after adverting to the rival
contentions, by the impugned Ext P14 order held as
follows:
"3. Heard both sides. The OP(Election) is filed to declare the
election of 1st respondent as void upon allegation of double
voting by 6 persons. The evidence in the case has started.
Petitioner was examined as PW1. During examination, she
stated that she is in possession of voters list of all the
constituencies referred to in the petition except one. No voters
list is produced with the petition to show that the persons alleged
are voters of two constituencies each. Without establishing a
prima facie case, the marked voters list cannot be summoned. In
order to establish a prima facie case, she need to prove that the
OP(C) No.1727 of 2022
alleged voters are included in the voters list of two
constituencies. For that voters list of the constituencies needs to
be perused by the court. As per Rule 120 of Civil Rules of
Practice, this court can issue summons for the production of
public records in the custody of a public officer if sufficient
reason exists. Here, in order to arrive at a prima facie
satisfaction before examining marked voters list, this court
requires the voters list to be examined first. The original petition
is challenging the election of first respondent and the nature of
case requires a speedy disposal for an effective remedy. The
Honourable High Court of Kerala has also fixed a time limit for
disposal of the case. The mere purpose of summoning the voters
list is to arrive at prima facie satisfaction as discussed above
before going further in evidence. Hence this Court is inclined to
direct the production of the voters list in the custody of witness
1 to 5 in original along with attested copies. Since petition is for
production of documents, the witness 1 to 5 need not appear in
person. Allowed and ordered accordingly.
18. Admittedly, the first respondent had filed the
witness list before the commencement of trial, wherein
the first respondent has evidently sought to issue
summons to ten witnesses for the purpose of proving
her case.
19. Ext P11 application was filed by the first
respondent to issue summons to witnesses Nos. 1 to 5
for the following purpose:
OP(C) No.1727 of 2022
Sl Name and summons/ Oral, Matters to be proved Document to
address produce documentary be proved
No.
1. The Returning To prove that
Officer, Ward 1.Voter No.117 Jose, marked
No.019 Deviyar son of Joseph, House voters list and
No.429, Cheruvallil signed
Ward to the House with identity register of the
G06001 card No. voters
Adimaly Grama SECIDB4E9173F
summons both
Council in Sunil Kumar,
son of Nanukuttan
Idukki District
Nair, House No.
458, Ananda
Bhavan,
with identity card
No.
KL/14/083/423405
Sindhumol, wife of
Sunil Kumar,
Ananda Bhavan,
ID card No.
JJQ1766732
Mini Eapen, wife of
Eapen, House No.637,
Kizhakkepallikka-
OP(C) No.1727 of 2022
parambil
Voter ID No.
SECID4B78D60D
5. Sri. Pradeep C.K
Changanamparambil
House, House
No.81, Deviyar,is
shown as 25 Part 2,
S.No.83 in Ward
No.19
6. Smt.Sheeba
Pradeep, wife of
Pradeep, House
No. 81.
Chenganaparambil
House of Deviyar
Ward, is shown as
Part 2, SI No. 84 in
casted their votes
in Ward No. 19 of
Adimaly Grama
Panchayath
Officer,
Jose, son of Joseph,
Anappara
House No. 211 marked
Constituency in
voters list and
Cheruvallil House, signed
Rajakkad Grama
with identity card register of the
OP(C) No.1727 of 2022
Panchayat summons both No.KL/14/084/087556 voters
Anappara
Constituency in
Rajakkad Grama
Panchayat
casted his vote
3. The Returning summons both 1. Voter No.471,
Officer,
Sunil Kumar, marked
Neerikode West
s/o.Nanukuttan Nair, voters list and
Constituency of House No.458, Ananda signed
Alangad Grama register of the
Bhavan, with voter ID voters
Panchayat in Card
Ernakulam No.SECID21783452
district
Sindhu, wife of Sunil
Kumar, Ananda
Bhavan,
Ananda Bhavan
Idendity card
No.SECID21783452
Casted their votes in
Alangad Grama
Panchayat
4. The Returning summons both To prove that
Officer,Ward
voter No.527 marked
No.21 Valara
voters list and
ward of Adimaly Mini, wife of Eapen, signed
Grama house No.565, register of the
Panchayat Kizhakkepallikka- voters
parambil, identity card
No.KL/14/083/423765
OP(C) No.1727 of 2022
in No.21 Valara ward of
Adimaly Grama
Panchayat
5. The Returning Summons both To prove that marked
Officer, Ward voters list and
1. Sri. Pradeep CK, signed
No.18
Poomamkandam Cheganaparambil register of the
Ward of voters
House No. 136,
Vathikudi Grama
Panchayat in Poomamkandam
Idukki district with Part 1,SI.
No.320 in Ward
No.18
Poomamkandam
Ward of Vathikudi
Grama Panchayath
2.Smt. Sheeba
Pradeep voter with
Part 1, SI No. 321,
residing at
Chenganaparambil,
House No. 136 of
Poomamkandam
Ward of Vathikudi
Grama Panchayat casted
their votes
OP(C) No.1727 of 2022
20. On an analysis of the pleadings and materials
on record, it is undoubtedly clear that immediately
after the first respondent's cross examination was
completed, she took steps to issue summons to witness
No.7, which was unsuccessfully challenged by the
petitioner before this Court in O.P(C)No.1069/2022
and the passing of Ext P8 judgment.
21. After the passing of Ext P8 judgment, the
petitioner again filed I.A.No.5/2022 to decide the
election petition on a preliminary issue. The said
application was dismissed by the court below by Ext
P10 order on 3.8.2022.
22. Immediately, thereafter, the first respondent
filed Ext P11 application, on 22.8.2022, to summon
witnesses Nos 1 to 5, for the reasons clearly mentioned
in the witness list.
OP(C) No.1727 of 2022
23. The first respondent is the dominus litis and
the onus of proof is on her to prove her case in the
manner contemplated under law. The petitioner has no
right to dictate terms to the first respondent - the master
of the suit - especially when the petitioner has not
conceded that the voters' list in the possession of the
first respondent can be accepted in evidence.
24. The above sequence of events establishes that
the first respondent has been diligently conducting the
election petition, which is being stalled by the
petitioner at each and every stage.
25. Rule 120 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala,
explicitly enables summons to be issued to public
officers to produce the records in their custody.
26. The court below has judicially exercised its
powers and passed the impugned order by directing the
OP(C) No.1727 of 2022
witnesses 1 to 5 to produce the voters' list, and that
they need not adduce oral evidence. The objections of
the petitioner are untenable and vexatious.
27. In the light of the principles laid down by the
Honourable Supreme Court in the afore-cited
precedents, I do not find any infirmity, illegality or
error in Ext P14 order, warranting interference by this
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
This Court has no doubt in its mind that the ulterior
intention of the petitioner is to somehow procrastinate
the final determination of the election petition by filing
frivolous petitions one after the other. Resultanantly,
the original petition is devoid of any merits and is
hence dismissed. The court below is directed to
dispose of the election petition, in accordance with law
OP(C) No.1727 of 2022
and as expeditiously as possible, as directed by this
Court in OP(C)No.2169/2021 way back on 06.12.2021.
sks/6.1.2023 SD/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
OP(C) No.1727 of 2022
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1727/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 A COPY OF THE AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION IN
O.P (ELECTION) NO.1/2021 ON THE FILES OF
MUNSIFF COURT, ADIMALY
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 30.11.2021
IN O.P(ELECTION) NO.1/2022 ON THE FILES OF
MUNSIFF COURT, ADIMALY
Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL OBJECTION DATED
09.02.2022 IN O.P(ELECTION) NO.1/2022 ON THE
FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, ADIMALY
Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2022 IN
O.P (C) NO.261/2022 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROOF AFFIDAVIT BY THE
ELECTION PETITIONER DATED 17.03.2022
Exhibit-P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE
ELECTION PETITIONER DATED 19.03.2022
Exhibit-P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.05.2022 IN
I.A NO.2/2022 IN O.P (ELECTION) NO.1/2021 BY
THE MUNSIFF COURT, ADIMALY
Exhibit-P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.06.2022
IN O.P(C) NO.1069/2022 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit-P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.08.2022 IN
I.A NO.4/2022 IN O.P(ELECTION) NO.1/2022 BY
THE MUNSIFF COURT, ADIMALY
Exhibit-P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.08.2022 IN
I.A NO.5/2022 IN O.P (ELECTION) NO.1/2021 BY
THE MUNSIFF COURT, ADIMALY
Exhibit-P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN
I.A NO.6/2022 IN O.P (ELECTION) NO.1/2021 BY
THE MUNSIFF COURT, ADIMALY
Exhibit-P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 24.08.2022
BY THE PETITIONER TO I.A NO.6/2022
Exhibit-P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL OBJECTION DATED
24.08.2022 TO I.A NO.6/2022
Exhibit-P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2022 IN
I.A NO.6/2022 IN O.P (ELECTION) NO.1/2021 BY
THE MUNSIFF COURT, ADIMALY
