IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 9 of 2008() ------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/11/2007 IN IA 2820/2007 IN OS.259/1999 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS IN I.A/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. NEENA VINAYAN, W/O VINAYAN, 'BHARATHI', PIPE LANE ROAD, PALARIVATTAM, ERNAKULAM. 2. SREELATHA PRAKASH, W/O PRAKASH, 32/980, PIPE LANE ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN SRI.P.T.GIRIJAN SMT.USHA NARAYANAN RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT IN I.A/PLAINTIFF: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- GIKKU CHIT FUND(P)LTD., REGD OFFICE AT B-498, NEHRU GROUND NIT, FARIDABAD-121001. BRANCH OFFICE AT P.P.ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE SRI.JOHN VIPIN SMT.S.A.SHERLY SMT.SAJITHA GEORGE SRI.DENY JOSEPH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2008 ALONG WITH CRP NO.10 OF 2008 AND CRP NO.11 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.27/2008 IN C.R.P.NO.9/2008 DISMISSED 21/02/2008 SD/-M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NOs. 9, 10 & 11 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of February, 2008. O R D E R C.R.P.9/08 is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam in I.A.2820/07 which is an application to direct PW1 to produce certain documents. CRP 10/08 is preferred against the order in I.A.2820/07 which is to recall PW1 for further cross-examination. CRP 11/08 is preferred against the order in I.A.2819/7 for amendment of the written statement. There was an interim application filed to summon Circle Inspector of police with some documents and that has been allowed by the Court below. The brief facts necessary are that the suit is one for realisation of the amount alleged to be due under a kuri transaction. It is submitted that the kuri was bid in auction, documents were executed including a promissory note and there was delay in making the payment and so the plaintiff instituted the suit. 2. The case of the defendants is to the effect that they had not joined any kuri and that there was a complaint by one of the subscribers against the foreman for falsification CRP NOs. 9, 10 & 11 of 2008 -:2:- of accounts and as the first defendant's husband and foreman were friends in order to help the foreman from escaping the criminal liability they appeared before the Circle Inspector of Police admitted the joining of kuri as well as the execution of promissory note etc. The Court below after appreciation of the materials allowed the claim. At that time also there were three applications filed one for reopening, one for examining the Circle Inspector of Police with the documents and the other to examine the husband of the first defendant as the witness. All those applications were dismissed by the Court below. Thereafter the present revision petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court and this Court as per its judgment in A.S.193/02 set aside the judgment and decree of the Court below and gave an opportunity to the appellant to examine the witnesses. It is also made clear that in order to enable them the judgment and decree has been set aside and the matter is remanded. So a reading of the judgment of this Court would reveal that the remand is for a limited purpose to enable the defendants to examine the witnesses whose CRP NOs. 9, 10 & 11 of 2008 -:3:- examination was negatived by the Court below. Thereafter, again the defendants remained absent, the suit was decreed exparte subsequently restored to file and thereafter four applications were filed one to recall PW1 another to summon certain documents from PW1 then another for amendment of the written statement and the last one for examining the Circle Inspector of Police with documents. The prayer in the last application was allowed and all the other applications were dismissed on the ground that the scope of remand does not entail that Court to allow the same in the light of the remand order of this Court. I think there is absolute justification for the Court below in not allowing those prayers. The defendants cannot be permitted to change pleadings by substituting the word 'not' which will have an altogether a different connotation. 3. Similarly, it was for the defendants to have directed the plaintiff to produce documents at the earliest stage and not at this belated stage that too against the remand order. When those documents cannot be summoned CRP NOs. 9, 10 & 11 of 2008 -:4:- the prayer to recall and examine PW1 also cannot be allowed. Thus the Court below strictly complied with the directions of this Court and permitted the party to summon Circle Inspector of Police with documents. The orders passed by the Court below do not suffer from any infirmity but it has also to be stated while remanding the case this Court had in mind that if the first defendant wants to summon her husband as a witness, that also may be allowed. The C.R.Ps. are disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-