Kerala High Court
P.P. Damodaran vs Govindan.K.V on 24 February, 2025
OP(C) NO. 350 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:16811
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1946
OP(C) NO. 350 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 07.12.2023 IN OS NO.214
OF 2016 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR
PETITIONER:
P.P. DAMODARAN
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, RESIDING AT EZHOME AMSOM, ERIP
URAM - CHENGAL DESOM, PO. PAYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670303
BY ADVS.
M.V.AMARESAN
S.S.ARAVIND
RESPONDENTS:
1 GOVINDAN.K.V
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O. RAMAN, KALLU VALAPPIL, CHIRAKKARA VAYAL,
MOTTAKAI PEEDIKA, CHUZHALI AMSOM AND DESOM, PO.
CHUZHALI, KANNUR TALUK, PIN - 670142
2 KAPPALAKANDI PANKAJAVALLI
AGED 58 YEARS
W/O. GOVINDAN.K.V, KALLUVALAPPIL, CHIRAKKARAVAYAL,
MOTTAKAI PEEDIKA,CHUZHALI AMSOM AND DESOM, P.O.
CHUZHALI, KANNUR TALUK, PIN - 670142
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C) NO. 350 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:16811
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 24th day of February, 2025)
Petitioner filed O.S No. 214/2016 for recovery of money
amounting to Rs. 8,13,945/- with future interest @ 12% per
annum on the basis of an agreement executed between the
plaintiff and the 1st defendant on 23.12.2013. The defendant
entered appearance and filed a written statement disputing the
agreement executed on 23.12.2013 as well as the execution of
the agreement dated 24.04.2014. The petitioner therefore filed
I.A No. 3/2021 under Order 11 Rule 2 to direct the defendant to
answer the following interrogatories;
a) Do you dispute / execution of agreement 24-04-
2014 mentioned in para 6 of the plaint?
b) Who has executed the said agreement dated 24-
04-2014 mentioned in para 6 of the plaint?
2. A counter affidavit has been filed in the said I.A
wherein it was contented that the execution of the agreement
is already disputed in the written statement. But the
defendant had a case that the 2 nd defendant put signatures on
OP(C) NO. 350 OF 2024
2025:KER:16811
blank papers and handed over to the plaintiff. Therefore, they
opposed the prayer for interrogatories. The Court below, by
Ext.P8 order, dismissed the petition. After the dismissal of I.A
No.3/2021, the petitioner filed I.A No. 6/2022 directing
defendants to furnish answers to a few other interrogatories
(6 in number).
3. A counter affidavit was filed to the said application
as Ext.P2. The court below by Ext.P3 dismissed the
application on the ground that similar relief was sought in I.A
No.3/2021 where the same was dismissed as per order dated
10.11.2021, and the same questions are brought in the
present application. Therefore, the second application is not
maintainable since, the defendants have denied the execution
of the agreement in the written statement itself.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me
through Ext.P8 order as well as Ext.P6, the earlier
interrogatories which were filed as per I.A No. 3/2021. A
comparison of the interrogatories in I.A No. 3/2021 as well as
I.A No. 6/2022 would show that both are not one and the
same and the questions sought are different. In the earlier
OP(C) NO. 350 OF 2024
2025:KER:16811
I.A, the question was whether the execution of the
agreement dated 24.04.2014 is disputed or not, whereas in
the present interrogatories, the question is whether the
signature appearing in the agreement is by the 1st defendant
or not. More specifically, the signature appearing near the
endorsement of receipt of Rs.10,00,000/- is by the 1 st
defendant or not. The third question is though, in respect of
the earlier agreement, a slight change has been brought in
the question as to whether the signature in the said
agreement is by the 1st defendant or not.
5. The court below did not take into consideration, the
nature of the questions sought for in I.A. No.3/2021 and in
the present application. But the Court simply rejected the
application on the reason that the question which is now
sought for in the present application has already been
covered in I.A No.3/2021 and the court has already negated
the same. As mentioned earlier, a perusal of both the IAs
would show that the questions are not one and the same,
and this aspect has not been taken into consideration by the
court below while dismissing the application. Therefore,
OP(C) NO. 350 OF 2024
2025:KER:16811
Ext.P3 stands set aside, and the court below is directed to
reconsider the issue, taking specifically the questions sought
in I.A No.3/2021 as well as in the present application afresh.
This original petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI,
JUDGE
Saap
OP(C) NO. 350 OF 2024
2025:KER:16811
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 350/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN I.A. 06/2022
IN O.S. NO. 214/2016 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE FILE HON'BLE MUNSIFF
COURT, PAYYANUR DATED 25-11-2022
Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER FILED BY THE
RESPONDENTS DATED 03.01.2022 IN I.A.
06/2022 IN O.S. NO. 214/2016 BEFORE THE
FILE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANUR
Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A. 06/2022 IN O.S.
NO. 214/2016 PASSED BY THE FILE HON'BLE
MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANUR DATED 07.12.2023
Exhibit -P4 TRUE COPY OF THE O.S. 214/2016 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR
DATED 13-12-2016 FOR RETURN OF ADVANCE
AMOUNT
Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE
RESPONDENTS IN O.S.NO.214/2016 BEFORE
MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR
Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF PETITION IN I.A.03/2021 IN
O.S. 214/2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR DATED 30-
09-2021
Exhibit -P7 TRUE COPY OT COUNTER IN I.A.03/2021 IN O.S.
214/2016 BEFORE MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR
DATED 8-10-2021
Exhibit -P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.03/2021 IN O.S.
214/2016 PASSED BY MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR
DATED 10.11.2021
//True copy//PA to Judge
