IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 OP(C).No. 1260 of 2011(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A 1233/2011 IN OS.122/2007 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER : ---------------------- B.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, AGED 73 YEARS, DEVI BHAVAN, PALLICHAL.P.O., NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.LEO GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. HYMEDHESWARI AMMA, ESWARA VILASAM, T.C.10/1369, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 013. 2. K.MOHANACHANDRAN NAIR, ESWARA VILASAM, T.C.10/1369, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 013. 3. P.M.PREMALATHA, W/O.K.MOHANACHANDRAN NAIR, ESWARA VILASAM, T.C.10/1369, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 013. 4. HEMACHANDRAN NAIR, ESWARA VILASAM, T.C.10/1369, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 013. 5. DEVI R.NAIR, DEVI BHAVAN, PALLICHAL.P.O., NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 020. 6. M/S.PUNJAB AND SIND BANK, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.1260 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The first defendant in O.S.No.122 of 2007 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Thiruvananthapuram challenges the order dated 9th March, 2011 in I.A.No.1233 of 2011. The plaintiffs produced certain documents in the suit. I.A.No.1233 of 2011 was filed to receive those documents. The petitioner raised objections regarding admissibility of the documents. The court below, by the order impugned, allowed the application. However, the court below noticed in the order that the admissibility and proof are entirely different. Holding that it would not be proper to shut out evidence, the court below allowed the application. The petitioner would be entitled to contend that the document is not admissible in evidence and that it has no probative value. O.P.(C) No.1260/2011 2 That question need be considered at the time of hearing. It is not necessary to interfere with the order passed by the court below. The Original Petition is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl