IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2011 / 13TH POUSHA 1932 OP(C).No. 1313 of 2010(O) -------------------------------------- I.A.NO.3066/2010 IN OS.276/1999 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------------ 1. ABRAHAM J.THARAKAN, S/O.LONAN THARKAN, AGED 67, SHIBUMIYIL, ELPHINSTONE ROAD, FORT KOCHI, VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. KAMILI THARAKAN, OF -DO- -DO-. BY ADV. DR.V.N.SANKARJEE, SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN.C.H, SRI.A.V.CHARLES. RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS ------------------------------------------ K.V. KURIAKOSE, S/O.VARKEY, AGED 43, NENMELIPARAMBIL, EZHUPUNNA VILLAGE, EZHUPUNNA MURI, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, 688 538. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ O.P(C).No.1313 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The Original Petition is filed by the defendants in O.S.No.276 of 1999 on the file of the Court of Principal Munsiff of Cherthala praying to set aside Ext.P2 order dated 11th October, 2010 in I.A.No.3066 of 2010 in the suit, by which the court below rejected the application for return of document filed by the petitioners. 2. It is stated that the suit was dismissed by the trial court and the plaintiff has filed an appeal as A.S.No.98 of 2003 before the Sub Court, Cherthala. The appeal is pending. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that they made an application before the Appellate Court, for return of Ext.B4 document, but that application was not disposed of as the records were not received from the trial court. Thereafter, the petitioners filed O.P(C).No.1313 OF 2010 2 I.A.No.3066 of 2010 before the trial court for return of the original of Ext.B4 after substituting a duplicate of the document. In the affidavit accompanying the application, it was stated that the original of Ext.B4 was required for getting a loan. The trial court dismissed the application on the ground that the Appellate Court had called for the records from the trial court and therefore, the prayer cannot be granted. The reasons stated by the court below for dismissing the application cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction. 3. As the petitioners have already filed application before the Appellate Court for return of the documents, the petitioners can very well prosecute that application, after receipt of records by the Appellate Court. If the Appellate Court finds that the prayer can be granted, appropriate orders would be passed by the Appellate Court. O.P(C).No.1313 OF 2010 3 With the above observations, the Original Petition is closed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms