Kerala High Court
Sea Wood Developers Pvt Ltd vs Anish Baby on 6 June, 2024
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1946
OP(C) NO. 2006 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2023 IN I.A. 2/2023 IN CS
NO.100 OF 2020 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/PRINCIPAL SUB
COURT / COMMERCIAL COURT, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/DEFENDANT NO.1:
SEA WOOD DEVELOPERS PVT LTD
223, SHIV CENTRE, SECTOR-17, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI,
4000703 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
THOMAS JACOB OOMMEN, AGED 44 YEARS, BUSINESS, S/O
LATE JACOB OOMMEN, NOW HAVING ADDRESS AT P-31,
RH-5, SECTOR 7, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI, THANE,
MAHARASTRA, PIN - 400703
BY ADVS.
BASIL MATHEW
AJAY KRISHNAN S.
ARYA A.R.
ANJITHA JOBI
ROSEMARIA JOHNSON
NINAN JOHN
SANJANA SARA VARGHESE ANNIE
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANTS 2-3:
1 ANISH BABY
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O A. YOHANNAN, AMPAKUDIYIL HOME, PULIYOOR P.O.,
CHENGANNUR REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER, A. YOHANNAN, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O. LATE
KOCHUKUNJU MATHUNNI, AMPAKUDIYIL HOUSE, PULIYOOR
P.O, CHENGANNUR, PIN - 689510
2 M/S. TIKNAR HOMES (P) LTD
81, 38/2090A, NORTH GIRINAGAR, OPP. LIONS
COMMUNITY HALL, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI, PIN - 682020
2
OP(C) No. 2006 of 2023
3 M.K. NARAYANANKUTTY
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, M/S. TIKNAR HOMES (P) LTD
RESIDING AT XL/7107, LAKSHMI VIHAR, DORAISWAMY
IYER ROAD, KOCHI, PIN - 682035
BY ADVS.
RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL
ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW(K/1557/2003)
ANJANA S.(K/1828/2021)
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
OP(C) No. 2006 of 2023
Dated this the 6th day of June, 2024
JUDGMENT
Ext.P9 order passed by the Commercial Court,
Ernakulam (for short 'the trial court') is under challenge in
this Original Petition.
2. The petitioner is the first defendant and the
respondents are the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 in C.S.
No.100/2020 on the file of the trial court. The suit is one for
realisation of money. According to the plaintiff, he booked
an apartment in Tiknar Seawood Voyage, which is a joint
venture project of defendants 1 and 2. But, the second
defendant did not hand over the apartment. Hence, he
instituted the suit to realise the money paid by him. In the
written statement filed by the first defendant, he relied on
the joint venture agreement executed between him and the
second defendant. However, the said joint agreement was
not produced by any of the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff
filed Ext.P7 application to give a direction to the first
defendant to produce the said joint venture agreement. The
trial court after hearing both sides, allowed the said
application as per Ext.P9 order. It is challenging the said
order, this Original Petition has been filed.
3. I have heard Sri. Basil Mathew, the learned counsel
for the petitioner and Sri. Rinny Stephen, the learned
counsel for the first respondent.
4. According to the plaintiff, the joint venture
agreement executed between the defendants 1 and 2 is
necessary for proving his case. On the other hand,
according to the first defendant, the said document is not at
all necessary for adjudicating the disputes between the
parties. In the written statement, the first defendant has
relied on the joint venture agreement. When examined, he
also admitted that he is in possession of copy of joint
agreement. When the plaintiff asserts that the joint venture
agreement is necessary to prove his case and also to
disprove the contention set up by the first defendant, the
question whether the said agreement if produced would
prove the case of the plaintiff is not a matter to be looked
into at his stage. The plaintiff has every right to prove his
case in the manner he wishes. When the plaintiff wants to
prove a case in adducing evidence in a particular manner,
the court cannot shut down the said evidence. I see no
illegality or impropriety in the impugned order.
Accordingly, this Original Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
BR
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2006/2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 17.01.2019
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 25.11.2019
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT FOR SALE CUM
CONSTRUCTION DATED 19.08.2013 WHICH WAS
MARKED AS EXT A-2 IN C.S. 100/2020 OF THE
COMMERCIAL COURT, ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT DATED
13.03.2023 ISSUED BY SOUTH INDIAN BANK,
CHENGANNUR NRI BRANCH, WHICH WAS MARKED AS
EXT A-3 IN C.S. 100/2020 OF THE COMMERCIAL
COURT, ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT DATED
15.03.2023 ISSUED BY STATE BANK OF INDIA,
PULIYOOR BRANCH WHICH WAS MARKED AS EXT A-
4 IN C.S. 100/2020 OF THE COMMERCIAL
COURT, ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P6 THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 28.03.2013 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
WHICH WAS MARKED AS EXT A-5 IN C.S.
100/2020 OF THE COMMERCIAL COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO. 2/2023 IN
C.S. 100/2020 DATED 12.07.2023 OF THE
COMMERCIAL COURT, ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF COUNTER FILED BY THE
PETITIONER IN I.A. 2/2023 DATED 26.08.2023
IN C.S. 100/2020 OF THE COMMERCIAL COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
ON THE FILE OF THE COMMERCIAL COURT,
ERNAKULAM
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF SRI.
THOMAS JACOB OOMMEN, THE DIRECTOR OF SEA
WOOD DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD AS DW1 BEFORE THE
COMMERCIAL COURT, ERNAKULAM
