IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2009 / 8TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 32737 of 2008(V) -------------------------- OS.23/1992 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- K.K.GOVINDAN, S/O.K.V.KRISHNAN, KARATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHIRAKKAKODE, MADAKKATHARA VILLAGE, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT,REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.G.SUNIL KRISHNAN, S/O. GOVINDAN, KARATTUPARAMBIL,CHIRAKKAKODE MADAKKATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY MR.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MR.S.SUJIN. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- PREMSANKAR, S/O.KARATTUPARAMBIL GOVINDAN, ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, 'ASWATHY' G.C. NAGAR,PEROORKKADA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.P.C.SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.32737/2008 V APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE I.A.NO.2803 OF 2008 IN O.S.NO.23 OF 1992 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, THRISSUR. P2: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 15/07/2008 IN WPC.NO.20898 OF 2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P3: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE NOS.46,47,,92,61,62,.63,64,65,66,77, 103,104 & 130 OF THE DEPOSITION MADE BY THE DEFENDANT IN GOP NOS.53 & 54 OF 1990 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, KOLLAM. P4: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE NOS.9,18,21,23,50 & 60 OF THE DEPOSITIONS MADE BY THE RESPONDENT IN O.S.NO.23 OF 1992 ON THE FILE OF THE COURET OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, THRISSUR. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 22/09/2008 IN I.A.NO.2803 OF 2008 IN O.S.NO.23 OF 1992 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, THRISSUR. P6: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF DEPOSITION OF THE RESPONDENT IN M.F.A.NO.1214/1991. P7: COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE RESPONDENT AT SUB COURT, THRISSUR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.32737 OF 2008 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: i. to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction to call for the records leading to Ext.P5 order and quash the same; ii. to issue a writ or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Sub Court, Thrissur to consider the evidence along with other evidence in O.S.No.23 of 1992 and take a decision in accordance with law; iii. to award to the petitioner the costs of these proceedings; and iv. to grant such other and further reliefs as are just, proper and necessary or may be prayed for. 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.23 of 1992 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Thrissur. Suit is one for WPC.32737/08 2 declaration that a document presented by the defendant is void and for consequential reliefs. Suit was once decreed, but later, in appeal preferred by the petitioner/defendant, the decree was reversed with the case remitted for fresh disposal providing opportunity to both sides to lead evidence. Pursuant to such remand, it is submitted that both sides produced some documents for admitting them in evidence. The defendant also moved an application producing some documents and seeking the recalling of DW2 for further cross examination. DW2 was recalled and some additional documents were exhibited in evidence by the defendant. Defendant thereupon again moved another application producing some more documents seeking for recalling the plaintiff, examined as PW1 in the case earlier. Plaintiff filed objections to that application and the learned Sub Judge after hearing both sides and examining the documents produced, dismissed that application. Propriety and correctness of that order was challenged by the defendant filing a writ petition before this Court. Ext.P2 is the judgment rendered in that petition, by which, the order impugned was set aside and the WPC.32737/08 3 learned Sub Judge was directed to examine whether the documents produced are relevant for resolving the disputes involved in the suit, and if so found, to examine whether they can be received in evidence subject to terms. Pursuant to that judgment, the learned Sub Judge examined the matter afresh hearing the counsel on both sides and arrived at a conclusion that the documents produced by the defendant sought to be let in as additional evidence are not relevant for the adjudication of the issues involved in the suit, and accordingly, that application was dismissed. Ext.P5 is the order so passed by the learned Sub Judge. Challenge raised in the writ petition is against the legality, correctness and propriety of that order. 3. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. Strangely enough, the litigation which is continuing for the last more than 17 years is between a father and the son, and that too on a case presented by the son that misusing his power of attorney, a gift deed was executed in respect of his property in favour of the mother by the father. The mother is also WPC.32737/08 4 impleaded in the suit as the 2nd defendant. Whatever be the nature of the allegations raised and the disputes involved for adjudication before the court, the most crucial point to be noted is the suit relates to the cancellation of a deed purported to have been executed by a power of attorney holder in excess of the authority conferred on him. In such a case the area of controversy is limited, wherein, I find it difficult to understand what is the relevance of the deposition given by the plaintiff in a Guardian and Wards proceedings in respect of the custody of his children or the petition filed by his father to the Director General of Police, which are sought to be admitted as additional evidence. Whatever be the statements made therein it may not have any bearing on the question to be adjudicated by the court nor in the reliefs claimed under the suit. The learned Sub Judge after examining the materials, which are sought to be admitted as additional evidence, found them irrelevant for the purpose of adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. This Court, while disposing of the earlier writ petition has made some observations that such documents produced could be received WPC.32737/08 5 on terms, if so found relevant, is canvassed as a circumstance to show that the order passed by the learned Sub Judge is incorrect and improper. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff handed over to me a copy of the judgment rendered by this Court setting aside the earlier decree passed by the court below in the suit submitting that the scope of remand was very much limited though the parties had been given opportunity to lead further evidence. Perusing the judgment dated 5.10.2006 in A.S.No.295/1996 by which the previous decree passed by the court below was set aside and the case remitted for consideration, I find the main question to be looked into afresh relate to whether the suit was filed within the period of limitation, and in that context, it was also observed that all other findings in the suit would depend upon the question whether the suit has been filed within the period of limitation. It cannot be stated that the scope of remand was limited, after going through the judgment, and that the case was remitted solely for the purpose of consideration of the question of limitation; but, only depending on the question of limitation regarding other issues have to be considered. WPC.32737/08 6 Application for amendment filed in the appeal was also remitted to the court below for consideration and appropriate orders, which means, the entire issues involved in the suit required to be considered afresh after depending upon the question of limitation. Whatever that be, the present writ petition is filed impeaching the propriety and correctness of Ext.P5 order passed by the learned Sub Judge holding that the petition filed by the defendant for recalling PW1 for further examination and also for exhibiting some additional documents, which are stated to be a petition filed before the Director General of Police, a deposition statement of the plaintiff in a Guardian and Wards proceedings and a letter written by the 1st defendant to the father-in-law of the plaintiff. The learned Sub Judge found such documents are not relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the issues involved. The observation made by the learned Sub Judge that the petition has been filed by the defendant only to prolong the litigation cannot be found fault with. Taking note that the suit has been pending for the last more than 17 years, without any finality, the court below is directed to dispose the suit as expeditiously WPC.32737/08 7 as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Subject to the above observations, this writ petition is disposed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp