IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 20255 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.161/2007 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.PICKMAN AUTO ACILLARY PRIVATE LTD., HAVING ITS REG.OFFICE NO.9,MOTI UDAYANAGAR, GANAPUR ROAD, NASIK-422005, MAHARASTRA STATE, HAVING ITS FACTORY AT F-5,MIDCS,SATPUR NASIK,REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,VIJAY POKHARKAR,AGED 52, D.NYANESHAR POKHARAKAR,GANGAPUR ROAD,MAHARASTRA. BY ADV. SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) SMT.REKHA NAIR SMT.K.REENA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. H.M.T.MACHINE TOOLS LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 59, BELLERY ROAD, BANGALORE-500032, AND ITS OFFICE FACTORY AT HMT COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERRY, THRIKKAKKARA NORTH VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 2. M/S.MEDICAL EQUIPMENTS MANUFACTURING COMPANY (PVT) LTD., (MEMCO) HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE F-5, MIDC SATPUR, NASIC-422007, MAHARASTRA REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.SAJI VARGHESE FOR R1 SMT.MARIAM MATHAI FOR R1 SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE FOR R1 SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.20255/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.161/2007 PENDING BEFORE THE FIRST ADDITINOAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P2: COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF I.A.475/2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 10.7.2009. EXT.P4: COPY OF I.A.NO.4924/2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATD 15.7.2009. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 16.7.2009. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE PROOF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.161/2007. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.20255 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs: i. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order direct the 1st Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam to accept the documents which the petitioner produced along with the Ext.P4 petition dated 15.7.2009and allow the petitioner to give evidence based on it. ii. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order to set aside the order passed by the 1st Additional Sub Court in Ext.P4 petition dated 16.7.2009. 2. Petitioner is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.161 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. Suit is for settlement of accounts, and the 1st respondent is the plaintiff. At the WPC.20255/09 2 stage when the suit came up for trial, petitioner produced a number of documents, 27 in number, with a petition for receiving them with its proof affidavit. Though reception of such documents was sought for, explaining the reason for its delay by filing an affidavit and petition, the court directed the petitioner to file an additional affidavit. In compliance thereunder, an additional affidavit was also sworn to. Thereafter, not being satisfied with the reasons averred in the affidavit of the petitioner, Ext.P7 order was passed, by which, the court declined to accept the documents produced in evidence. Impeaching the propriety and correctness of Ext.P7 order, the writ petition is filed before this Court invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. After having heard the counsel on both sides at length and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to Ext.P7 order, I find outright rejection of the petition moved by the petitioner for reception of the documents in evidence, though belatedly produced, cannot be appreciated as it amounts to denial of WPC.20255/09 3 justice. Courts as instrumentalities of justice are expected to provide reasonable opportunity to the parties to establish their case. Of course, if there is lack of diligence or even default in taking steps or producing documents within the time fixed by the court, court can pass orders imposing costs on the party, but, even at that stage, in the absence of circumstances justifying that the party has deliberately and willfully committed such acts depriving his right to tender evidence, it is not proper to deny him opportunity to lead evidence. So much so, setting aside Ext.P7 order, I direct the court below to consider the petition filed by the petitioner/defendant afresh, subject to the observations made above and in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed with the above direction. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp