In an Article 227 writ petition challenging a lower court order dismissing an application to mark a photostat copy of a complaint, the High Court held that dismissing the writ petition was appropriate as the question of admissibility could be deferred to the final trial hearing.
The petition filed under Article 227 is dismissed in limine.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
OP(C).No. 2986 of 2016 (O)
IA.NO.430/2015 IN OS.NO.543/1999 OF FIRST ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER:
K. SURENDRAN, SATHEESH BHAVAN, HOSPITAL JUNCTION, PARASSALA.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.BALACHANDRAN (KULASEKHARAM) SRI.V.R.GOPU
RESPONDENT(S):
D. SHEELA,
VIJAYAVILASOM, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
OP(C).No. 2986 of 2016 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
NIL.
/ TRUE COPY /
P.S. TO JUDGE
PJ
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
....................................... O.P.(C).No.2986 of 2016
Dated this the 25th day of November, 2016.
JUDGMENT
This is a petition filed by the petitioner to set aside Ext.P4 order passed by the court below under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
O.P.(C).No.2986 of 2016 2
court and also by the defendant. So it was not marked at that time. The petitioner filed IA.No.430/2015 to review the oral orders said to have been passed denying marking of the document on 16.9.2014 and 9.12.2014 and mark the photostat copy which is produced as Ext.P1 which is the basic document for the petitioner to prove his case. The court below dismissed the application vide Ext.P4 order, which is under challenge.
O.P.(C).No.2986 of 2016 3
the document as the complaint filed by her. Under such circumstances, the document could not be marked during the time of trial. The petitioner filed an application to mark the document by reviewing the oral order said to have been passed on 16.9.2014 and 9.12.2014. The court below had rightly observed that there is no procedure of passing any oral orders and there is no order rejecting the request made by the petitioner to mark the document and as such there is no necessity to review the order sought in this petition. Further, in Ext.P4 order in para12 the court below had observed as follows:
“Counsel for the defendant opposed the petition. I
take the notice that this suit is of the yer 1999. Even after 16 years the suit remains undisposed. The evidence is complete. The suit is ripe for hearing and disposal. At this stage, it is not necessary to pass an order about marking of photocopy. The issue whether the said document can be marked , the relevance of that document and evidentiary value of that document can be decided at the time of final hearing. Hence, I defer decision in this petition till this suit is finally heard”
O.P.(C).No.2986 of 2016 4
Under such circumstances, this court feels that there is no necessity to interfere with the order passed by the court below as the court below had deferred the question regarding the marking of the photocopy considering its relevance and evidentiary value etc at the time of final hearing. So under such circumstances, this court feels that there is no illegality committed by the court below in dismissing the petition on the basis of the allegations made and nature of the order sought to be reviewed as there is no such order available on record warranting interference invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
With the above observations, the petition is dismissed in limine. The Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this judgment to the court below at the earliest.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower court's decision to dismiss a petition seeking review of oral orders regarding the marking of a document.
Whether the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is attracted when there is no recorded oral order to be reviewed.
K. SURENDRAN
D. SHEELA
K.RAMAKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
