IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 6584 of 2009(O) OS.NO.204/2008 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, KANJIRAPPALLY PETITIONER: K.M.RAJAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN, KOTTAYARIKIL, KOSADI, MADUKA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.ASWAS RESPONDENTS: 1. THE TAHSILDAR, KANJIRAPPILLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERUMELY NORTH VILLAGE, MUNDAKAYAM, KOTTAYAM. 3. RATHIKUMARI, CHETTUKAVIL, KOSADI, MADUKKA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.HASSAN SMT.JULIA PRIYA RESHMY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.NO.204/2008 FILED BY THIRD RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF IN KANJIRAPPILLY MUNSIFF'S COURT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CR.NO.338/08 OF MUNDAKAYAM POLICE STATION REGISTERED AGAINST THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10.1.2009 FILED BY THE WRIT PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF 'B' DIARY PROCEEDINGS BY THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KANJIRAPPILLY PURSUANT TO ORDERS PASSED IN I.A.NO.218/2009 FILED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN O.S.NO.204/2008. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 27.2.2009 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO WRIT PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 13.10.2004. EXT.R2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 17.11.2004. //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 6584 OF 2009 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th March, 2009 JUDGMENT The first defendant in O.S.No.204 of 2008, Munsiff's Court, Kanjirappilly, challenges the order dated 13.2.2009, by which the learned Munsiff ordered to issue a certificate directing the Village Officer, Erumeli North to issue possession certificate in favour of the third respondent/plaintiff in respect of the properties covered by three documents. 2. The suit was filed by the third respondent against the petitioner for permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of two items of immovable properties. The plaintiff claimed title and possession. The first defendant (writ petitioner) is the husband of the plaintiff. He has filed O.P.No.1076 of 2007 before the Family Court, Kottayam against the third respondent for declaration of title in respect of the properties which according to him were purchased by him in the name of his wife (third respondent). It is not clear whether the properties involved in both these cases are the same and the counsel appearing for the petitioner and the third respondent are of conflicting views on that aspect. W.P.(C) NO.6584 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 3. The question involved in this Writ Petition is whether the learned Munsiff has jurisdiction to issue a direction to the Village Officer to issue possession certificate to a party in the suit. A copy of the application which led to the passing of Ext.P4 order was made available to me for perusal. That application was filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for the issue of a certificate to enable the plaintiff to get the possession certificates from the Village Officer. 4. The power of the Court to summon a document cannot be disputed. The Court has got power to summon a document either on the application of a party to the suit or on its own motion. Section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the Court to issue summons to a person to produce documents. Rule 6 of Order XVI of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that any person may be summoned to produce a document. Rule 120 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala, empowers the Court to issue summons for the production of records in the custody of a public officer. A summons would be issued for production of the records only if the Court is satisfied on a verified petition filed by the petitioner that the document is required and that it is relevant. The Court must also be satisfied that where a certified copy of the document is enough, whether an application was made to the proper officer for a certified copy or copies of the document and the result of such an application. Sub-rule (3) of W.P.(C) NO.6584 OF 2009 :: 3 :: Rule 120 provides that no Court shall issue such summons unless it considers the production of the original necessary or is satisfied that the application for a certified copy has been duly made and has not been granted. The Court shall in every case record its reasons in writing and shall require the applicant to deposit in Court before summons is issued, such sum as it may consider necessary, to meet the estimated costs of making a copy of the document when produced. Sub-rule (4) provides for retaining a copy of the document which was produced on summons, unless retaining of the original is necessary. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 120 provides for the power of the Court on its own motion for issuing summons for the production of public records or other documents in the custody of a public officer. 5. The parties to the suit or proceedings are entitled to produce documents which are admissible in evidence. If a document is in the possession or power of a public officer, ample provisions are there in the Code of Civil Procedure and the Civil Rules of Practice to summon the document. A possession certificate which the Village Officer may issue to a person, is not a document which can be summoned. It is a certificate which the Village Officer gives to a party certifying that he is in possession of the property. That is not a document of which a certified copy could be granted to a party. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to direct the Village W.P.(C) NO.6584 OF 2009 :: 4 :: Officer to issue possession certificate to a party in a civil suit in which the Government or officers of the Government are not parties. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that when applications for “court certificate” for issue of possession certificate are applied for before the court below, the practice that is being followed in that Court is that orders like Ext.P4 would be issued. Learned counsel for the third respondent could not point out any provision of law which supports such a practice. There cannot be any practice which is contrary to law or which is not permitted by law. The Code of Civil Procedure or the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala do not empower a Civil Court to issue an order or “court certificate” as it is usually called in certain courts, to direct the Village Officer to issue a possession certificate to one of the parties to the suit where the question of possession itself is in dispute. Ext.P4 order is against law and it is liable to be quashed. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Ext.P4 order is quashed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/