IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29912 of 2008(J) ---------------------------------- OS.17/2008 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY .................... PETITIONERS : ----------------- 1. M/S. SAJEED BAKERS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR NADUVATH MUHAMMEDALI, S/O. ABDULLA HAJI, NADUVATH HOUSE, P.O.IRINGATH, IRINGATH AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 2. NADUVATH MUHAMMEDALI, AGED 30 YEARS, DO -DO- 3. ABDULLA HAJI, S/O. PAKRAN, AYANOTH HOUSE P.O. IRINGATH, IRINGATH AMSOM, DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHARAM.P RESPONDENT : ----------------- STATE BANK OF INDIA (ADB) PERAMBRA, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, PERAMBRA, KOYILANDY TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------ W.P(c) No. 29912 of 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioners. 2. Respondents/plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of money against the petitioners. Petitioners filed written statement taking up contentions as revealed by Exhibits P3 to P5. While so, petitioners filed Exhibit P8 application (I.A. No.1032 of 2008) to serve interrogatories on the respondents/plaintiff. Application was opposed by the respondents/plaintiff. Learned Sub Judge as per Exhibit P10. order dismissed the application observing that all the questions required to be answered by the respondent/plaintiff are contained in Exhibits P3 to P5. Learned counsel submits that Exhibit P3 to P5 may not be admissible in evidence. Hence petitioners are entitled to get affirmation of the facts stated in Exhibit P3 to P5. 3. So far as Exhibit P8, application is concerned I find that all the questions required to be served on the respondents/plaintiff are covered by Exhibits P3 to P5 and were already pleaded by the W.P(c) No. 29912/2008 2 petitioners/defendants in their written statement. It is also seen that Exhibits P3 to P5 were produced by the petitioners along with their written statement. If petitioners have an apprehension that Exhibits P3 to P5 produced by them are not admissible in evidence, there are provisions in the Indian Evidence Act stating how secondary evidence can be let in. The remedy of the petitioners are not by serving interrogatories. I do not find anything illegal or irregular in Exhibit P10 order. This writ petition is therefore dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE scm