IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP(C).No. 877 of 2011(O) -------------------- OS.106/2008 of SUB COURT, KOCHI .................. PETITIONER : ------------------- GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.SARANGAN, PALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT : ---------------------- RIMMY, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.PANAKKAL JOSE, PANAKKAL HOUSE, NARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682 505. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.1.2010 IN O.S. NO. 106/2008 OF SUB COURT, KOCHI. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE CHALAN RECEIPT DATED 23.6.2010. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION NO. 32/2010 IN O.S. 106/2008 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : COPY OF I.A. NO. 1492/2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COURT BELOW. EXT.P5 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 3.2.2011 IN I.A. NO. 1492/2010 OF THE COURT BELOW. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn P.BHAVADASAN, J. ---------------------------- O.P(c).No. 877 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Ext.P5 is under challenge. 2. The petitioner was the first defendant in O.S.No.106/2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Kochi, which was the suit for specific performance of contract and for injunction. The petitioner suffered a decree for return of the advance amount. According to him, he deposited the decree amount and the amount was withdrawn by the respondent. The original title deeds of the petitioner's property were produced by the respondent and got marked as Exts. A2 to A4. Though petitioner requested the counsel for the respondent to take back the documents from the court and return them to the petitioner, he did not do so. Therefore, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 application to get back those documents. That was rejected by Ext.P5 order. 3, Obviously, the court below has not adverted to the order 13 rule 9 which may enable a party to the suit to seek return of the documents produced by another party. That provision has not been considered by the court below. It was without considering the said provision that the petition was dismissed. O.P(c).No. 877 of 2011 2 In the result this petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial court for fresh consideration. Since the notice had already been served on the respondent in accordance with law, no fresh notice is necessary. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. ln