IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 25861 of 2008(D) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.1014/2008 IN OS.59/2004 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHEMMENCHERRY SINDHULEKHA, W/O RAJAN C. NAIR, RESIDING NEAR THAYIENERI MUTHAPPAN TEMPLE, BYPASS, THAYIENERI,PAYYANNUR, KARIVELLUR VILLAGE, THALIPARAMBA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KODOTH VENUGOPAL, S/O M.K. NARAYANA NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT KOKKANISSERI, PAYYANNUR, PAYYANNUR VILLAGE, THALIPARAMBA TALUK. ADV. SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No.25861 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.59/2004 on the file of Sub Court, Payyannur challenging Ext.P1 order dated August 5, 2008. 2. The petitioner/ plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of the amount due to her from the defendant . In the course of the evidence, defendant sought to mark documents Exts.B1 to B21. Inspite of the objections raised by the plaintiff, the lower court marked those documents and the suit is now at the stage of arguments. The plaintiff filed I.A.No. 1014/2008 stating that those documents should not be marked as those are photocopies only. By Ext.P1 order dated August 5, 2008 learned Sub Judge disposed of that petition holding that Ext.B1, B11, B14 and B15 are admissible in evidence, but Ext.B16, B17 and B21 are inadmissible in evidence. The plaintiff has filed this writ petition challenging the said order. 3. Heard the submissions of both counsel. WPC.No.25861/08 2 4. I feel that the writ petition is not maintainable as the plaintiff can challenge the marking of those documents in the suit itself at the time of arguments. Further I find no grave error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Sub Judge. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. In any event, the learned Subordinate Judge is directed to consider the objections raised by the plaintiff regarding the marking of the documents in I.A.No.1014/2008 in the suit untramelled by the observations contained in Ext.P1 order. The writ petition is disposed of as found above. P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. WPC.No.25861/08 2