Allowed

P.C.Sukumara Pillai v. the Secretary, T.D.B.

Kerala HC1 Dec 2008WP(C)/27211/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition directing the trial court to ensure production of original documents (Exts. A2 and A5) that were admitted only as photostats or without defense verification. The court also expedited the 2002 suit trial and set aside the order permitting retention of copies. (Quality: thin)

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to produce originals of Exts. A2 and A5; copies returned; order permitting retention of copies set aside; trial court directed to expedite trial.

P.C.Sukumara Pillai Vs the Secretary, T.D.B. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 27211 of 2008(M)

¶6

-------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25/08/2008 IN IA 1883/08 IN OS.154/2002 of MUNSIFF COURT,KAYAMKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

P.C. SUKUMARA PILLAI, SREEVALSAM VEETIL, CHERAVALLMURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, (PRESIDENT N.S.S KARAYOGAM, KAYAMKULAM CHARAVALLY NORTH)

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SMT.SURYA SASI

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

THE SECRETARY, THIRUVITHAMCORE DEVASWOM BOARD.

¶14

ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, KARUNAGAPPALLY.

¶15

SUB GROUP OFFICE, PUTHIYADOM, KAYAMKULAM.

¶16

ADV. SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC, TDB FOR R1-2

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J.

¶19

W.P(C) No.27211 OF 2008-M

¶20

Dated this the 1^st December, 2008.

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Heard counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent

¶23

is absent.

¶24

Counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of order on the proceedings paper dated 2.8.2008. It is seen recorded that both sides are present, that the plaintiff has no oral evidence and documents produced on the side of the petitioner are marked as Exts.A1 to A6 and the commission report is marked as Ext.C1 and the plaintiff's evidence was closed and for defendant's evidence the case was adjourned to 3.8.2008. It is not evidenced from the said order as to whether any objection had been raised to marking of Exts.A2 and A5 by the counsel for the defendants. However, it is seen that Ext.A2 is only a photostat copy and not an authentic copy and Ext.A5 though retained as copy by taking out copy in Court and certified by the examiner as true copy the defence had no occasion to see the original of Ext.A5. In the result the respondent is directed to produce the originals of Exts.A2 and A5 in the court

¶25

¶26

WPC 27211/2008

¶27

below and to get back those documents after retaining copies in Court for the purpose of the case, with notice to the counsel for the plaintiff. Both parties shall be entitled to adduce further evidence if they so choose. To the above extent Ext.P4 order is set aside. The Court below is directed to expedite the trial of the case as the suit is one of the year 2002. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶28

Transmit a copy of this judgment to the Trial Court forthwith.

¶29

K.P.BALACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶30

P.C.Sukumara Pillai v. the Secretary, T.D.B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.C.Sukumara Pillai v. the Secretary, T.D.B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.A.B.S. Adoration Convent & Others Vs Agnusamma & Another

Baduva Alias Baduvankunhi Beary Vs Khadeeja and Another

A.M.Ibrahim Vs M.Hameed and Others

R.Padmanabhan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Viji Roy Vs Narendranath

P.a.Shabeer Vs Karakkunnil Madhavi