IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2011 / 2ND BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 21306 of 2010(O) -------------------------- OS.238/2009 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- AKBAR.K.A., AGED 35, S/O.LATE KUNNATH ABDUL KARREM, WEST WIND APARTMENT, MATTUMEL JUNCTION, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR SRI.MATHEW SUNNY RESPONDENT: --------------- SHIBU, S/O.CHATHENGATTIL CHANDRAN, KUZHIKATTUSSERY DESOM, THAZHEKKADU VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21306 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.238 OF 2009 DTD 06.04.2009 ON the FILE OF THE SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN I.A.NO.2257 OF 2010 AND CONNECTED APPLICATIONS DTD 01.07.2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.21306 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 24th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Defendant in O.S.No.238 of 2009 of the Court of learned Sub Judge, Irinjalakkuda is the petitioner before me. That suit concerns the amount allegedly due to the respondent as per two cheques allegedly issued by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, signed blank cheques were stealthily taken from his office by the respondent. It is also the case of petitioner that before the alleged issue of cheques, there was a settlement of the whole disputes between the parties and an agreement was executed. It was understood that a photocopy of the agreement would be given to the petitioner but, that was not done. It is the case of petitioner that original of the agreement is still with the respondent. Respondent approached the police with an allegation that the said agreement was fabricated by petitioner and others. Police registered a case, investigated, found that allegations are false and referred it as mistake of fact. It is submitted that later, the police registered a case against the respondent for giving false information and causing the case to be registered. While so, after the evidence of respondent in the suit was over, petitioner W.P(C).No.21306 of 2010 -: 2 :- filed I.A.Nos.2257 and 2258 of 2010 before the learned Sub Judge, the first one to direct the police officer concerned to produce documents and second, to direct respondent produce the original of the agreement which petitioner says, is in the possession of the respondent. The applications were resisted by the respondent. Respondent pleaded that he is not in possession of any such agreement. Learned Sub Judge dismissed the applications. That order is challenged in this original petition. 2. Learned counsel has submitted that relevant records from the police case is necessary to prove the case of respondent. It is also submitted that original of the agreement referred to in I.A.No.2258 of 2010 is with the respondent which he is bound to produce. 3. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that the applications are filed at the fag end of proceeding after the evidence of respondent was over and with I.A.No.2257 of 2010 not even containing a prayer to summon any witness to prove the document sought to be exhibited in evidence. Respondent is not in possession of any agreement as alleged by petitioner. 4. In view of the stand of respondent that he is not in possession of any such agreement as petitioner alleges in I.A.No.2258 of 2010, there is no reason to interfere with the W.P(C).No.21306 of 2010 -: 3 :- order on I.A.No.2588 of 2010. 5. What remained is I.A.No.2257 of 2010. There, the request is to direct the police officer to produce certain document. But, there was no request to summon the officer concerned who is competent to prove the relevant documents. Nor was any witness schedule filed by petitioner. I must also bear in mind that records in an on gong investigation cannot be brought to the Civil Court and kept there. That will affect the investigation of the case. The proper course open to the petitioner was to summon the officer concerned with true copies and original of the relevant documents to give evidence, prove the true copies through such officer after comparing the same with the original document so that after examination of the witness is over, the original documents could be returned to the witness. Such course is not seen adopted by petitioner. Having regard to the reliefs sought to be established by the petitioner I am inclined to give petitioner an opportunity to take appropriate steps in the matter. Resultantly this writ petition is disposed of in the following lines: (i) Dismissal of I.A.No.2258 of 2010 is confirmed. W.P(C).No.21306 of 2010 -: 4 :- (ii) Dismissal of I.A.No.2257 of 2010 is set aside and that application is remitted to the learned Sub Judge for fresh disposal. (iii) If evidence of the parties is closed, it is open to the petitioner to file an application to reopen the evidence and file witness schedule citing the officer concerned who is to prove the relevant document as prayed for in I.A.No.2257 of 2010. Petitioner shall state which all documents are required to be produced, in the witness schedule and the officer concerned shall be directed to produce the attested true copies of those documents along with the originals (if the officer concerned is in possession of such documents), so that the true copies could be proved in evidence after comparison with the originals and after examination of the witness is over, the original documents could be returned to the officer concerned. (iv) Petitioner shall move proper applications within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment in the court below. (v) Learned Sub Judge is directed to expedite disposal of the suit as well. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-