IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930 CRP.No. 23 of 2009 ------------------------------- OS.498/2006 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: V.CHANDRAN, S/O.VASUDEVAN, VADAKKUMKARA VEEDU, UDHYAMKONAM, MADIRA MURI, MANGODU VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJAN SRI.P.I.DAVIS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1. ALIAMMA GEORGE, W/O.K.V.GEORGE, RESIDING AT KRIMPIL BUILDING, KOTTAKKAKAM, VITHURA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. GEORGE VARGHESE, S/O.K.V.GEORGE, DO. DO. 3. GEORGE KURIAN, S/O.K.V.GEORGE, DO. DO. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- C.R.P.No.23 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.498/06 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. It is submitted that the suit stood posted for trial in the special list on 2.1.2009 and that now it stands adjourned to 18.2.2009. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that certain documents, which were produced by him and attempted to be got marked vide affidavit of the petitioner/plaintiff as Exhibits A2(a) to A2(e), A3 (a) and A3(b) and A4(a) and A4(b) are disallowed to be marked by the court below for the reason that those documents were produced only just a few days before trial, though the suit is one of the year 2006; that their genuineness can be proved only by examining those who issued them; that belated production of the documents relied upon by the petitioner/plaintiff to substantiate the claims CRP 23/09 2 cast doubt on their genuineness and that therefore, marking cannot be allowed. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents were being produced with a petition to receive the same, though belated; that by an omission a proper explanation was not given in the petition to receive the documents, but, however, that the court below has not adverted to that petition at all and that the documents were not produced earlier only for the reason that compromise talks were going on. 4. It is strange that the court has observed that the documents can be proved only on their genuineness being established by examining those who issued them and however, that belated production casts doubt on their genuineness. It is true that even if the documents are marked during the course of examination of the plaintiff, it cannot be said that self serving testimony of the plaintiff proves those documents. If at all the CRP 23/09 3 plaintiff wants proper proof of those documents to be had, he may have to examine the executants thereof and the genuineness has to be established on the evidence that may be so adduced. It is unwarranted for the court below to cast aspersions on the genuineness or otherwise of the documents on account of belated production only, without considering the evidence that may be adduced in the suit for proving those documents. However, it is submitted that trial of the suit is adjourned to 18.2.2009. This Court could have appreciated the eagerness to dispose of the suit had the suit been disposed of, giving such a long adjournment. Inasmuch as now the suit is adjourned to 18.2.2009, there is sufficient time and the parties can adduce evidence to prove or disprove the documents and hence I set aside the impugned order and direct the court below to afford an opportunity to the petitioner/plaintiff as also to the respondents/ defendants to adduce both oral and documentary CRP 23/09 4 evidence as they please, provided, they take all steps positively on or before 31.01.2009. This revision petition is, thus, allowed and disposed of with the above directions. Petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order in the court below forthwith with notice to the counsel for the respondents/defendants, as this writ petition is being disposed of without notice to them. The copy of this order has to be produced positively in another four days. Issue copy of this order to the counsel for the petitioner forthwith. 19th January, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv