IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2011 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP(C).No. 2619 of 2011(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/03/2011 IN IA 851/2011 IN OPEL.11/2010 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER: ------------------------------ K. LAKSHMI, D/O. KANNAN, AGED 59 YEARS,THAIVALAPPIL, MUZHAPPILANGAD AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT: --------------- K.T. REMA, W/O. SADANANDAN, AGED 54 YEARS, "ANATHANAM", MUZHAPPILANGAD AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670611 ADV. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY SRI.RAJESH V.NAIR THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2011 ALONG WITH O.P(C).NO.2624 OF 2011. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 2619 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF O.P(ELECTION) 11/2010 FILED BY the 1st RESPONDENT BEFORE MUNSIFF, COURT, THALASSERY EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY the PETITIONER IN THE ABOVE original petition EXHIBIT P3 : CERTIFIED COPY OF the I.A.NO.851/2011 IN O.P(ELECTION) 11/2010 FILED BY the 1st RESPONDENT BEFORE MUNSIFF, COURT, THALASSERY ALONG with THE DOCKET ORDER DTD 17.03.2011 OF MUNSIFF COURT, THALASSERY RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /True Copy/ P.A to Judge THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).Nos.2619 and 2624 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 01st day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT These original petitions are in challenge of the order dated 17.03.2011 on I.A.No.851 of 2011 in O.P(Ele).No.11 of 2010 and I.A.No.852 of 2011 in O.P(Ele).No.12 of 2010, both of the Court of learned Munsiff, Thalassery. First respondent in these original petitions challenge election of petitioner on various grounds including impersonation, fraudulent misrepresentation etc. Respondent filed objection to the election petition denying the various allegations. While so, first respondent in these proceedings filed I.A.Nos.851 and 852 of 2011 in O.P(Ele).Nos.11 and 12 of 2011, respectively requesting the learned Munsiff to direct the District Collector, Kannur to produce the documents referred to in the said applications in the said Court. On those applications, learned Munsiff has passed a monosyllabic order, “allowed”. Those orders are under challenge. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that the impugned orders were passed without giving opportunity to the petitioners to prefer objection and has placed reliance on the decision in Shajul Hameed Vs. Mohammed Habibullah O.P(C).Nos.2619 and 2624 of 2011 -: 2 :- (1996(2) KLT Case No.36). According to the learned counsel, the hearing to be granted should be a fair hearing. It is also the contention of learned counsel that without framing issues and arriving at a prima facie satisfaction of the truth of allegations made in the election petitions, it was not within the power of learned Munsiff to summon the documents relating to the election. 3. Learned counsel for first respondent in both the cases submitted that pursuant to the impugned order the documents are already produced by the District Collector before the learned Munsiff. Learned counsel for petitioners was however, not able to confirm this. 4. When these petitions came up for hearing on 10.08.2011 this Court granted stay of operation of the impugned order according to the learned counsel for first respondent the documents have already been produced before the learned Munsiff which I was not able to confirm. 5. It is seen that the impugned orders is a monosyllabic order without referring to the various aspects of the matter and the circumstances in which learned Munsiff could summon the documents relating to the election. If the documents have already been produced before the learned Munsiff, there is no O.P(C).Nos.2619 and 2624 of 2011 -: 3 :- purpose in interfering with the impugned order, setting aside the same and directing the documents to be send back to the District Collector or other authority, as the case may be, then hear the applications and again to pass orders on the said applications. The appropriate course is to issue direction as to what the learned Munsiff has to do in the matter, further. 6. The various decisions on the point say that so far as summoning of documents relating to the election is concerned, it is on prima facie satisfaction of the truth of allegations contained in the election petition that such a step could be taken by the learned Munsiff. Therefore, if the documents have already been produced before the learned Munsiff, the inspection or other proceeding with respect to those documents can be had only after issues are framed (if issues are not already framed) and learned Munsiff on appropriate evidence is prima facie satisfied of the truth of allegations and the necessity to inspect the documents/count the votes etc. 7. If as contended by learned counsel for petitioners the documents have not already been produced before the learned Munsiff, the impugned orders will stand set aside and learned Munsiff shall decide the said applications, as above stated, only after reaching a prima facie satisfaction on the materials O.P(C).Nos.2619 and 2624 of 2011 -: 4 :- produced that such summoning and inspection, etc of documents are required. Resultantly these original petitions are disposed of as follows: (i) In case pursuant to the impugned orders the relevant documents have already been produced by the learned Munsiff, it is directed that inspection of the documents etc, if any required can be done only after learned Munsiff frames issues (if it is not already done) and after reaching a prima facie satisfaction on the materials on record of the truth of allegations contained in the election petition. (ii) In case pursuant to the impugned orders the documents have not so far been produced before the learned Munsiff, the orders impugned will stand set aside and it will be open to the learned Munsiff to consider I.A.Nos.851 and 852 of 2011 after framing issues (if it is not already done) and reaching a prima facie satisfaction regarding the truth of allegations contained in the election petition on the materials adduced. (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-