IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2008 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 37555 of 2008(U) -------------------------- OS.109/2005 of MUN-MAGI COURT, S. PARAVOOR .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- BHAGAVAT SINGH SAROJ GANGA NEDUNGOLAM P.O. KOLLAM BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH (PARTY-IN-PERSON) RESPONDENT: --------------------- D. SUSEELA SANJAY BHAVAN, NEDUNGOLAM P.O. KOLLAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 37555 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th December,2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.109/2005 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Paravoor. Ext.P1 sketch which is copy of a plan prepared in C.C.C 212/1997 on the file of this Court issued to the plaintiff from the village office on application made under provisions of Right to Information Act was allowed to be marked as Ext.B9 by the court below over-ruling the objections raised by the counsel for the petitioner. The said order was sought to be got reviewed by the petitioner filing Ext.P2 application in the court below contending that Ext.B9 will not come within the purview of Section 33 of the Evidence Act and that therefore allowing it to be marked as Ext.B9 be reviewed. The court below vide Ext.P3 order dismissed the said petition holding that the order sought to be reviewed is an order allowing marking of a document at the time of examining a witness over-ruling the objection of the petitioner and it is not the kind of the order that is enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code upon which a petition for review can be entertained and that the order is not revisable. Accordingly the court below dismissed Ext.P2 WPC 37555/2008 2 application. It is the said Ext.P3 order that is assailed in this writ petition. 2. It is vehemently contended by the counsel for the petitioner on the strength of Section 33 of the Evidence Act that the marking was improper and Ext.B9 should not have been allowed to be marked. The fact remains that the objection stated by the counsel for the petitioner were recorded in the deposition of D.W.2 and was over-ruled by an order of the court below and it was thus that Ext.B9 was allowed to be marked. The probative value of the said document is a matter to be considered by the court at the time of considering the case on merits hearing arguments of both sides. Merely because it was marked it does not mean that for all practical purposes of considering the case on merits the court will rely on that document if at all it is not the document on which any evidentiary value can be placed. The petitioner therefore should have proceeded partaking in trial of the suit rather than moving for review of the order allowing marking of the document and should not have approached this Court on an assumed grievance on Ext.P3 order. If parties approach this Court at each and every stage of WPC 37555/2008 3 trial of the case on such silly matters trial of the suit can never be completed. There is absolutely no merit in this writ petition and this writ petition is dismissed. K.P.BALACHANDRAN Judge jj WPC 37555/2008 4 K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO: ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: