Disposed

Leena Jaimon v. Jose Thomas

Kerala HC17 Aug 2016OP(C)/689/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ameenathan, in a public document sent for expert opinion, was dismissed by the sub-judiciary. The High Court, on Article 227 of the Constitution of India, uphold the dismissal as the documents were not part of the pending suit and no proper application to summon them had been filed. The Court directed the petitioner to file necessary applications before seeking expert opinion on such documents.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with direction to the petitioner to file proper application to summon documents before seeking expert opinion.

Leena Jaimon Vs Jose Thomas — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/26TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 689 of 2016 (O)

¶6

-------------------------(I.A.NO.2112/2013 IN O.S.NO.635/2012 OF ADDL.SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM)

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

LEENA JAIMON, W/O.JAIMON, KORATTIYIL HOUSE, POOVARANY P.O., ELIKKULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.K.S.SANTHI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. JOSE THOMAS.D., FINANCIER, CHOVVATTUKUNNEL HOUSE,

¶12

THALAPPALAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶13

2. JAIMON JOSE, S/O.JOSEPH, KORATTIYIL HOUSE, POOVARANY P.O.,

¶14

ELIKKULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALULK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 577.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR

¶16

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sts

¶18

OP(C).No. 689 of 2016 (O)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT-P1:	COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.635/2012 (OLD NUMBER O.S.NO.76/2010).
EXHIBIT-P2:	COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.636/2012 (OLD NUMBER O.S.NO.128/2010).
EXHIBIT-P3:	COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.259/2009 (OLD NUMBER O.S.NO.637/2012).
EXHIBIT-P4:	COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11.10.2011 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT O.P.(C) NO.3232/2011 AND O.P.(C) NO.3234/2011.
EXHIBIT-P5:	COPY OF OBJECTION ALLEGEDLY FILED BY THE PETITIONE IN O.S.NO.14/2008.
EXHIBIT-P6:	COPY OF REPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.636/2012.
EXHIBIT-P7:	COPY OF I.A.NO.2112/2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.635/2012.
EXHIBIT-P8:	COPY OF ORDER DATED 14.10.2015 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM IN I.A.NO.2112/2013 IN O.S.NO.635/2012.
RESPONDEN	T(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

========================

¶27

O.P.(C) No.689 of 2016

¶28

========================== Dated this the 17^th day of August, 2016

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

This is a petition filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P8 order passed by the court below dismissing the application to send certain documents for expert opinion, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶31

It is alleged in the petition that petitioner is the plaintiff

¶32

in Exts.P1 and P2 suits O.S No635 of 2012 and 636 of 2012 on the file of Sub Court, Kottayam for setting aside sale deed Nos.298/2007 and 143/2008 of Meenachil SRO and Kanjirappally SRO respectively and consequential reliefs. Ext.P3 suit namely O.S No.259 of 2009 was filed by the first respondent herein against the petitioner, which was re-numbered as O.S No.637 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Kottayam. The petitioner earlier filed application to send the impugned sale deeds for expert opinion, which was dismissed by the court below and he filed O.P.(C) Nos. 3232 of 2011 and 3234 of 2011 challenging those orders before this Court and this Court by Ext.P4 common

¶33

W.P.(C) No.689 of 2016

¶34

Page numbers

¶35

judgment dismissed the petitions. Thereafter according to the petitioner, Ext.P5 counter statement said to have been filed in O.S No.14 of 2008 of Sub Court, Pala and another counter statement said to have been filed in the insolvency petition filed by another creditor alleging that the petitioner herein had admitted execution of the impugned sale deeds in favour of the first respondent were produced in this case. So the petitioner filed Ext.P7 application for sending those two documents for expert opinion, which was dismissed by the court below vide the impugned Ext.P8 order.

¶36

Heard Sri.Jibi George, counsel representing Smt.K.S.Santhi, counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.Narendra Kumar, counsel appearing for the first respondent. Others remained absent.

¶37

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that she had not admitted the filing of the counter statements which have been produced where there is an alleged admission of execution of the impugned documents by her. In order to prove that fact, it is necessary to send those documents for expert opinion to ascertain as to whether the signature in those documents were that of the petitioner. So, the reasons stated by the court below

¶38

W.P.(C) No.689 of 2016

¶39

Page numbers

¶40

for dismissing the application is not proper.

¶41

On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent submitted that the court below had considered all these aspects and rightly found that there is no necessity for sending the documents for expert opinion.

¶42

Admittedly, the documents sought to be sent are not the documents before the court in which the present suits are pending and they are not part of the suit under consideration. The court cannot send the document which is not available in the suits in which the application is filed for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the signature in those documents is that of the petitioner or not. She had not summoned those documents for this case. Further original of those documents are

¶43

not available in the suits filed by the petitioner. If those documents are produced or filed in connection with some other suit or proceedings, unless the petitioner files a proper application to summon those documents, if he wants to deny those signatures and if she wants to send those documents for expert opinion, then if the court feels that that is required for the purpose of proper adjudication of the case, then only the court can consider the question of sending those documents for expert

¶44

W.P.(C) No.689 of 2016

¶45

Page numbers

¶46

opinion. In this case, petitioner want to send certain documents original of which are not produced in the suits, which were filed by the petitioner and which were jointly tried with the suit filed by the first respondent. So under such circumstances, there is no illegality committed by the court below in dismissing the application warranting interference at the hands of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner files a proper application to summon those documents and then files an application to send those documents for expert opinion and if the court feels that those documents are necessary for the disposal of the case and getting an expert opinion on that is also required for proper adjudication of the lis between the parties, then the court below is at liberty to consider those applications and pass appropriate orders at the relevant time.

¶47

With the above direction and observation this writ petition is disposed of.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶50

vdv/16/08/16

Leena Jaimon v. Jose Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leena Jaimon v. Jose Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Graceamma Thomas Vs Sreedevi

Pramod A.G. Vs Kuriakose A.J.

Chathoth Subha Vs Senior Manager

T.J.Rinil Rolence Vs Suraj Kumar Sumitran

B. Surendradas Vs Wilson

E.K. Kunhiraman Vs Dr.P.P.Bhaskaran