IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2010 / 28TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 26238 of 2010(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/06/2010 IN IA.739/2010 IN OS.464/1994 of SUB COURT, PALA .................... PETITIONER/ PLAINTIFF: ------------------------ JOSE JOSEPH, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH, MANAGING PARTNER, UNIVERSAL RUBBERS, CHERPUNKKAL P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM, RESIDING AT KALTHOOR, MEENACHIL VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: ------------------------ ABRAHAM P.J., S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT PAMPADIYIL HOUSE, AKALAKKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 001. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.26238 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 19th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P1, order dated 24- 06-2010 on I.A.No.739 of 2010 in O.S.No.464 of 1994 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Pala. Petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit for money filed I.A.No.739 of 2010 on 23-06-2010 to call for records of S.T.No.503 of 1993 from the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ettumanoor stating that those records are necessary to prove his case. That application was dismissed vide Ext.P1, order on 24-06-2010 stating that petitioner can obtain certified copy of the relevant documents from the court concerned. That order is under challenge. According to learned counsel, records of S.T.No.503 fo 1993 are necessary for proving the case of petitioner in the suit. It is also contended that no justifiable reason is stated by the learned Sub Judge to dismiss I.A.No.739 of 2010. 2. The power under Order XIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to send for records of another court is discretionary. The discretion has to be exercised in accordance with the known principles of law. Even as per the submission of learned counsel accused in S.T.No.503 of 1993 was acquitted by the appellate court W.P.C.No.26238 of 2010 : 2 : and that decision is under challenge in this court in appeal preferred by the complainant. Necessarily, records of the case are required in that case and cannot be called for in the civil suit. Even otherwise it was open to the petitioner to apply for and get certified copy of the relevant documents from S.T.No.503 fo 1993. Learned counsel states that the suit is posted for trial in the list on 07-09- 2010. But I must bear in mind that Ext.P1, order observing that petitioner can obtain certified copy of the relevant documents was passed on 24-06-2010 and this writ petition is filed only on 18-08- 2010 I am not persuaded to think, on the facts and circumstances stated above that it is necessary to summon records of criminal case from the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ettumanoor. It is open to the petitioner to get certified copy of the relevant documents. If petitioner is not able to produce relevant documents before trial in the case commenced it is up to the petitioner to request learned Sub Judge to grant sufficient time. Writ petition is dismissed with the above observation. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-