IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 1122 of 2007() ---------------------- (AGAINST ORDER IN I.A. 1785/07 IN O.S.339/05 OF MUNSIFF, CHANGANACHERRY) REVN. PETITIONERS: PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS ---------------------------------------- 1. A.G.CHANDRAMATHI, W/O NARAYAN, MULLASSERY HOUSE, CHUNGOMKARA, MUTTAMBALAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK FROM ARAYASSERIL PUTHUPARAMBIL, THRIKKODITHANAM VILLAGE CHANGANACHERRY TALUK. 2. A.G.RAJEEV, S/O GOPALAN, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUMALI VILLAGE, PEERUMEDU TALUK FROM THRIKODITHANAM VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND FIRST PETITIONER, A.G.CHANDRAMATHI. 3. A.G.HARIDAS, S/O GOPALAN, -DO- REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, A.G.CHANDRAMATHI. 4. JAGADAMMA GOPALAN, W/O GOPALAN, -DO-DO- REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER A.G.CHANDRAMATHI. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUKUMARA MENON RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS ---------------------------------- 1. A.G.REVAMMA, W/O PRASANTHAN, DWARAKA HOUSE, RAMANKARY KARA, RAMANKARY VILLAGE, KUTTANADU TALUK, FROM PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, THRIKKODITHANAM KARA DO. VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK. 2. PENNAMMA. W/O GOPALAN, PUTHUPARAMBIL, THRIKKODITHANAM VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 1122 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 1st day of January, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff, Changanacherry, in I.A. 1785/07 in O.S. 339/05. The said interim application is filed with a prayer to direct the first defendant to produce document Nos.2663/04 and 1300/98 and further for a direction to produce the application filed for registration of the document. The court below rejected the prayer on the ground that there is no specific denial of the execution of the document and therefore those things are not warranted. A reading of the plaint would show that the contention of the plaintiffs is to the effect that the said executant namely A.G. Radhamony was totally bedridden and hence was not able to understand the consequence of her action and she had no mental or physical capacity to execute a document, as claimed by the first defendant. Therefore, totality of the pleadings has to be taken into consideration by the court below and not the isolated pleadings here and there. Since the other side has not appeared before me, I feel that the matter has to be reconsidered CRP NO.1122/07 2 afresh after taking into consideration the entire pleadings in the correct perspective and arrive at a decision. Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below for fresh consideration of the said I.A. The court shall give notice to the contesting defendants in the case, hear the matter afresh and dispose it of in accordance with law specifically, with reference to the points discussed in this judgment. The civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps CRP NO.1122/07 3