IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2010 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP(C).No. 963 of 2010(O) ------------------------ OS.99/2004 of II ADDL.M.C.,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER:- ------------------ MARIYAMMA, W/O.AVAISAR, RESIDING AT SUMATHY NIVAS, CHARUVILA RANDAMKULANGARA, KUVALASSERI P.O., MARANELLUR, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SMT.KVP.JAYALEKSHMY SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) RESPONDENT:- -------------------- SREELAS, RESIDING AT CHETTIVILA, KARINGAL, KUVALASSERI P.O., MARANELLUR, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 512. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = OP(C).No.963 of 2010-O. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T Defendant No.10 in OS.No.99/2004 of the Court of learned Addl.Munsiff-II, Neyyattinkara is the petitioner before me seeking a direction to the learned Addl.Munsiff- II, Neyyattinkara to issue carbon copy of judgment dated 29.9.2010. It is contended by petitioner that the case was posted for hearing on 20.9.2010 and then for judgment on 29.9.2010. But judgment was not pronounced in open court (as it ought to have been) till rising of the court. Later from the 'A' Diary it was revealed that judgment was pronounced and the suit was decreed on 30.9.2010. Petitioner filed IA.No.7108/2010 for issue of a carbon copy of the judgment. But that application was rejected by Ext.P2, order stating that there was no oral request immediately after judgment was pronounced. Learned counsel states that it was in the circumstance stated above that an oral request could not be OP(C).No.963/2010-O. 2 made and placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Muhammed v. Munsiff, Tirur (1997(2) KLT 412). 2. That decision referring Rule 6B of Order XX of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'Code') stated about obligation of the court to make available copies of judgments to the parties immediately after judgment is pronounced. But, the decision also refers to Rule 239(3) of the Civil Rules of Practice (for short 'Rules of Practice'). As per the said Rule, any party to the proceeding may, immediately after judgment or order is pronounced apply orally to the court for a carbon copy or photostat copy. There is no case that any such oral request was made in the present case. True, according to the petitioner, he could not make such a request since judgment was not pronounced in open court and since it was revealed only from the 'A' Diary that the judgment was pronounced and the suit was decreed. I am presently not going into the question whether the judgment was pronounced in open court or not though as I stated every judgment or order, as OP(C).No.963/2010-O. 3 it states, is required to be pronounced in open court. 3. Learned counsel submits that petitioner has already applied for a certified copy of judgment. Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented before me, I am inclined to issue the following directions: (i) Learned Addl.Munsiff-II, Neyyattinkara shall, as far as possible, issue a carbon copy of judgment dated 29.9.2010 in OS.No.99/2004 as applied for in IA.No.7108/2010. (ii) In case issue of a carbon copy is not practicable for any reason learned Addl.Munsiff shall ensure that petitioner is issued with a certified copy of the judgment as applied for, as early as possible, at any rate, within two weeks from the date receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petition is disposed of as above. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, (Judge) Kvs/-