IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 6817 of 2008(J) ------------------------- OS.915/1991 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ DR. JOY, S/O.VARKEY, THANIKKAL THOPPIL MANALUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THRISSUR DISTRICT CONGRESS COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SECRETARY, THRISSUR DISTRICT CONGRESS COMMITTEE, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU FOR R1 & 2 SRI.M.GEORGE THOMAS FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Petitioner’s Exhibits:- Ext.P1:- True copy of the deposition of PW1 in O.S. 77/80 of Munsiff Court, Thrissur dated 25.9.1981 Ext.P2:- True copy of the deposition of DW1 in O.S. 77/80 of Munsiff Court, Thrissur dt. 6.10.1981 Ext.P3:- True copy of the deposition of PW1 in O.S. 915/91 dt. 16.9.2006 Ext.P4:- True copy of official Memorandum issued by this court dt. 14.1.2008 ------ //True Copy// P.A. to Judge M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P(C). NO. 6817 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the supplemental fourth plaintiff in O.S. 915 of 1991 on the file of Sub Court, Thrissur. Respondents are the defendants. Supplemental plaintiffs were impleaded on the death of the original plaintiff. Defendants produced a receipt before the trial court. It was subsequently found missing. When the matter was reported to this court under Ext.P4 trial court was permitted to reconstruct the missing receipt and to proceed with the trial. The receipt which was missing, was subsequently reconstructed on the copy made available by respondents. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for a direction to the trial court to decide the genuineness of the receipt at the time of trial. 2. The learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondents were heard. 3. Learned senior counsel pointed out that Ext.P2 deposition of DW1, who was examined on the side of the WPC6817/08 2 defendants shows that the case of the defendants, even when DW1 was examined, was that the receipt was kept by plaintiff in the suit and subsequent to the missing of the receipt, original plaintiff, who is now no more, was examined on 14.9.2006 and then a photocopy of the receipt was shown to him and he denied the signature seen therein and deposed that he did not issue that receipt and for the reason that the document was subsequently reconstructed by the court with the permission of this court, trial court may take a view that the substituted document is to be acted upon without proof regarding its genuineness. 4. For the reason that this court permitted the trial court to reconstruct the missing receipt does not mean that the document so reconstructed is to be accepted as genuine or acted upon. It is for this court to decide whether the document is proved or not. That is to be decided on the evidence considering the plea of the parties in the pleading as well as evidence on record. Writ petition is disposed accordingly. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-