IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2010 / 8TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23859 of 2010(O) -------------------------- OS.969/2009 of PRL.M.C.,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- RAJAN.KS, S/O.SREENIVASAN,AGED 45 YEARS, KATTUKARAN HOUSE,KUZHUPILLY VILLAGE,AYYAMPILLY, KOCHI TALUK,ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 501. BY ADVS. SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY, SRI.ANIL GEORGE, SRI.K.S.SUMEESH. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- M/S.VOLVO FASHIONS PVT LTD,REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.NANDAKUMAR,S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN PILLAI, AGED 41 YEARS,"SHYAM KRISHNA" KAITHARAM.P.O, NORTH PARUR,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-683 519. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.23859 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 30th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Defendant in O.S.No.969 of 2009 of the court of learned Principal Munsiff, Ernakulam is the petitioner. He is facing a suit for prohibitory injunction to restrain him from preventing director of respondent gaining access to the shop room referred to in the plaint schedule and to restrain him from selling goods without any records. Respondent filed I.A.No.842 of 2010 to direct petitioner to produce bills and vouchers concerning stock in trade mentioned by the Advocate Commissioner in his report. Learned Munsiff allowed that application. Petitioner contends that none of the documents directed to be produced are necessary for adjudication of the dispute involved and hence learned Munsiff ought not have passed the impugned order. Learned Munsiff has placed reliance on the decision of this court in Samual Kaaron Vs. Damodaran (1959 KHC 6) and contended that unless the documents are relevant for adjudication of the dispute court has no jurisdiction to summons the same. It is also the contention of learned counsel that attempt of respondent is to help the defendant in O.S.No.158 of 2009 which is being tried along with the suit. W.P.C.No.23859 of 2010 2 2. Though a copy of the impugned order is not appended to this writ petition I have gone through the copy of the order given to me by learned counsel for perusal. Respondent/plaintiff sued for a decree for injunction to restrain petitioner from prohibiting him as director of respondent-company gaining access to the shop room where business of respondent is carried on. It is the case of respondent that it purchased goods on credit from M/s. R.K Apparels Venture Pvt. Ltd. and is engaged in business in the shop room described in the plaint schedule. Petitioner is now selling those goods as proprietor of M/s. Volvo Fashions instead of M/s. Volvo Fashions Pvt. Ltd Co (respondent). Petitioner denied the allegations and contended that Sri. Nandakumar appeared as director of respondent had no right to represent the respondent- company and that the ready made shop does not belong to the respondent. He also claimed that he has transaction with Raju Joseph of M/s. R.K Apparels Venture Pvt. Ltd. 3. Advocate Commissioner inspected the shop room and reported about the stock in trade. It is thereon that respondent filed Ext.P4, application to direct petitioner to produce purchase bills and vouchers of the stock in trade reported by the Advocate Commissioner. That application was opposed by petitioner but W.P.C.No.23859 of 2010 3 learned Munsiff as per the impugned order has allowed the application. Contention advanced is that documents are not relevant for decision of the case and is only to help defendant in the connected suit. 4. I have gone through the order under challenge. Learned Munsiff has observed after referring to the contentions urged by the parties and after considering facts and circumstances of the case that the documents are relevant for adjudication of the disputes. When respondent asserted that the ready made business carried on in the shop room described in the plaint schedule is that of respondent petitioner contends that it is his business and that he has transaction with one Raju Joseph. In the circumstance I am unable to hold that the documents are not relevant for decision of the issues involved. The court below has considered the rival contentions and held that documents are required. That order does not in any way effect right of petitioner. In such a situation interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is not warranted. Petitioner has to produce the documents summoned and which are in his possession and custody. If there is any document which is not in the possession or custody of petitioner he can file affidavit in the court below explaining why and how he is not able to produce such W.P.C.No.23859 of 2010 4 document. It is open to the petitioner to request learned Munsiff to grant further time for production of the documents in his custody/possession and to file affidavit. If any such request is made learned Munsiff shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders. With the observation made above this writ petition is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-