IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 10705 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/03/2009 IN IA 2643/09 IN OS.2867/2006 of I ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT.,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- BHASKARAN,(RETIRED TEACHER),AGED 70, S/O.ARUMUKHAN,"ASWATHY",MUNDOOR DESOM, ANJOOR VILLAGE,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. JOICE ANTONY @ JAISON, S/O.PELLISSERY ANTHONY, AMMADAM DESOM, PARALAM VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK. 2. ANANTHAKRISHNAN @ ANANDAN, S/O.EDATHEDATH MADHAVAN,VALLISSERY DESOM, AVINISSERY VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK. 3. JIJEESH,S/O.PANAPARAMBIL VELAYUDHAN, KODANNUR VILLAGE,DESOM,THRISSUR TALUK. 4. PRASANNAN,S/O.THADATHIL VASU, VENGINISSERY DESOM,PARALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 5. SHAJI,S/O.MADAMBIPARAMBIL VASUDEVAN, AVINISSERY VILLAGE,DESOM,THRISSUR TALUK. 6. MANOJ,S/O.NADUVALAPPIL RAMANADHAN, KODANNUR VILLAGE,DESOM,THRISSUR TALUK. 7. PREMADAS,AGED 42 YEARS,S/O.BHASKARAN, RESIDING AT ASWATHI, PAZHAMUKKU DESOM, ANJOOR VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK. WP(C).No. 10705 of 2009(O) 8. LEELA, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.BHASKARAN, RESIDING AT ASWATHI, -D0- 9. SHALI, W/O.PREMADAS, RESIDING AT ASWATHI, PAZHAMUKKU DESOM, -DO-. R1 TO R6 BY ADV. MR.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL), SMT.R.RAJITHA . THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 10705/2009-O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06/12/2008 IN O.S. NO.485/2006 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT PRODUCED BY THE DEFENDANTS TOWARDS THEIR EVIDENCE. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE BANK MANAGER TO THE POLICE. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION I.A.2643/2009 IN O.S. NO.2867/2006 OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/03/2009 IN I.A.2643/2009 IN O.S.2867/2009 OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT. THRISSUR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rs/ S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.10705 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: i. to set aside Ext.P5 order dated 24.3.2009 in I.A.No.643/2009 in O.S.No.2867/2006 of the 1st Additional Munsiff Court, Thrissur and allow Ext.P4 application filed by the petitioner. ii. to grant such other relief deemed fit to this Honourable Court. 2. Petitioner is the 1st plaintiff in O.S.No.2867/06 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Thrissur. Respondents 1 to 6 in the petition are the defendants and respondents 7 to 9 are the co-plaintiffs in the suit. Suit was one for a mandatory injunction for directing defendants 1 to 6 to return some documents, stamp papers and signed blank cheques which are WPC.10705/09 2 purported to have taken by them from the plaintiffs keeping them under duress and by force, and in the alternative for declaring that the documents obtained by such defendants are null and void. In a nutshell, the case of the plaintiffs was that trespassing upon his plaint schedule building at midnight, keeping them under duress and by threatening them, some blank signed cheques and stamp papers were collected from them by the defendants 1 to 6 alleging that the 7th respondent had some liability in connection with some transactions entered with the above defendants. The defendants resisted the suit claim filing a written statement and after settling of issues the trial proceeded. It is the case of the petitioner that after the plaintiffs evidence was over, the defendants produced a counterfoil of a chellan to show that one of the cheques covered by the suit was presented before the Bank even before the incident alleged by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs thereupon sought for examination of one more additional witness, a Bank official, who at the relevant time was the Manager of the bank concerned. Only at the time of his examination, it is the case of the plaintiffs, they came to know WPC.10705/09 3 that he had retired from service, and as such, incapable of producing the connected records relating to the cheque which is covered by Ext.P2 receipt from the Bank. After the examination of that witness, plaintiffs moved an application to summon one more witness, Branch Manager of the Bank with direction to produce some books maintained by the Bank and also the account statement of the 1st defendant during the relevant period. The defendants objected to the petitioner's prayer made in the petition filing written objections. The learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides, declined the request of the plaintiff and dismissed the application. Ext.P5 is the copy of that order. Impeaching the correctness of that order, petitioner has filed this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find that outright rejection of Ext.P4 application by the learned Munsiff without WPC.10705/09 4 appreciating the disputed facts involved in the case arising for adjudication was not proper and correct. I do not wish to express any opinion on the reasonings made by the learned Munsiff in Ext.P5 order, but, in the nature of the disputes presented in the case, it is crystal clear that the request made by the plaintiff deserved serious consideration. I find that it would suffice the ends of justice if the plaintiffs are given an opportunity to collect from the Bank, copies of the relevant entries relating to Ext.P2 from the concerned registers maintained by an order of the learned Munsiff commanding the Bank to issue such certified copies. Section 2 (8) of [The] Bankers' Books Evidence Act defines a 'certified copy' in relation to the books and registers to be maintained by the Bank in respect of its transactions. A certified copy issued by the Bank with respect to the entries in such books maintained by the Bank can be treated as sufficient proof unless the contrary is shown. Plaintiff can move an application before the learned Munsiff requesting for an order to the Bank Manager of the concerned Bank to supply him the certified copies of the transactions relating to Ext.P2 counter WPC.10705/09 5 foil produced in the case, and if any such request is made, appropriate orders thereof have to be passed by the learned Munsiff enabling the plaintiff to collect such certified copies. The second request made by the plaintiff in Ext.P4 application relate to the details of the account statement of the 1st defendant, which for the entire period of its operation is not allowable. If the plaintiff makes a request in respect of the transaction in his account for the month of 'April' and for the issue of certified copy thereof, the learned Munsiff, as indicated above, shall pass appropriate orders enabling him to collect such a certified copy. Ext.P5 order is modified in the lines indicated above and the writ petition is disposed of. Communicate a copy of the judgment to the court below forthwith. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R --------------------------------------------------------- 23rd March, 2009