Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Biju Jacob vs Central Bank Of India
2024 Latest Caselaw 31355 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 31355 Ker
Judgement Date : 2 November, 2024

Kerala High Court

Biju Jacob vs Central Bank Of India on 2 November, 2024

O.P(C) No.2419 of 2024                1


                                                      2024:KER:81533
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

   SATURDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1946

                         OP(C) NO. 2419 OF 2024

          AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.07.2024 IN IA 5/2024 IN OS

NO.82 OF 2021 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/SUB COURT / COMMERCIAL

COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA


PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

              BIJU JACOB,AGED 60 YEARS
              S/O. LATE P.T. CHAKKO, SANTHA BHAVAN, KALANJOOR P.O,
              PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689694


              BY ADVS. SIDHARTH A.MENON
              V.AJAKUMAR,SANDRA MARIYA
              VINITHA S.T.



RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONER/DEFENDANTS:

      1       CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
              REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER KALANJOOR BRANCH,
              PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689694

      2       THE REGIONAL MANAGER, THE REGIONAL OFFICE,
              CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, GEO TOWERS, 2ND FLOOR,
              SAHODARAN, AYYAPPAN ROAD, PALLIMUKKU, ERNAKULAM,
              PIN - 682016

      3       THE ZONAL MANAGER, THE ZONAL OFFICE,
              CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,48/49, MONTEITH ROAD,
              EGMORE, CHENNAI, PIN - 600008


OTHER PRESENT:

              SC K M ANEESH

       THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 O.P(C) No.2419 of 2024                                2


                                                                                  2024:KER:81533

                                   VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
                   .................................................................
                                O.P(C) No.2419 of 2024
                   .................................................................
                   Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2024


                                    JUDGMENT

The above original petition is filed seeking to set aside Ext.P4

order dated 22.07.2024 in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in O.S.No.82 of 2021 pending

before the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta whereby the petition seeking a

direction to the respondent to produce document has been dismissed.

2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.82 of 2021 before the Sub

Court, Pathanamthitta. The suit was for recovery of money due towards

illegal use and occupation of the plaint schedule building and damage

caused to the plaint schedule building and for other consequential reliefs. It

is contended that the property was taken on lease from the father of the

plaintiff /petitioner by the 1st respondent and the suit has been filed for

recovering an amount of Rs.22,81,482/- from the defendants towards

compensation for illegal use and occupation of the plaint schedule

building, amount of electricity charges paid, etc. A written statement was

filed by the defendants who are the respondents herein wherein they have

admitted that they shifted the branch to a new premises. In order to prove

the new rate of rent paid by the respondents to the new building owner

petitioner filed Ext.P3 application as I.A.No.5 of 2024 calling upon the

2024:KER:81533 respondents to produce new rent/lease deed and the statement showing

the monthly rent paid to the new owner. The said request was disallowed

by Ext.P4 and the said order is under challenge in this original petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the stand of the court in

Ext.P4 is absolutely without any basis and the document is very much

relevant to prove whether the amount allegedly due from the respondents

for illegal occupation is fair and reasonable.

Order XI Rule 5 CPC mandates production of documents if the

document is related to the matter in controversy regarding the suit. What

has now been sought to be produced is an agreement executed by the

defendants with the third party which is not relevant for deciding the issues

involved in this case. Likewise the account statement relating to the third

party is also not relevant. Taking such a stand the request made by the

petitioner has been rejected by the trial court. I find absolutely no reason

to interfere with Ext.P4 order of the trial court. Accordingly the original

petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE

cks

2024:KER:81533 APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2419/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S 82 OF 2021 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUB COURT OF PATHANAMTHITTA

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION I.A NO. 5 OF

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/07/2024 IN I.A NO. 5 OF 2024

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter