IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2011 / 26TH ASWINA 1933 OP(C).No. 1063 of 2010(O) -------------------------------------- OS.797/2009 OF II ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- A.V. RAVEENDRANATHA KAMATH, S/O.VASUDEVA KAMATH, HOUSE NO.6/1828, PALACE ROAD, COCHIN-682 002. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY, SRI.MAHESH MENON. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- THE VARTHAKA MANDAL NIDHI LTD, A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE, R XI/6013, T.D. SHOPPING COMPLEX, T.D. WEST ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 035, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.S.R.DAYANANDA PRABHU. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs OP(C).No. 1063 of 2010(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT FILED IN OS NO.797/2009, SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN O.S. NO.797/2009, SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE I.A. NO.6131/2000 IN O.S. NO.797/2009, SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS DATED 06/10/2010 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN I.A. NO.6131/2010 IN O.S. NO.797/2009, SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE I.A. NO.7869/2010 IN O.S. NO.797/2009, SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE I.A. NO.7870/2010 IN O.S. NO.797/2009, SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE TRANSCRIBED ORDER IN I.A. NO.7869/2010 AND I.A. NO.7870/2010 IN O.S. NO.797/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.1063 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of October, 2011. JUDGMENT Ext.P7, order passed by learned II Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam on Exts.P5 and P6, applications (I.A.Nos.7869 and 7870 of 2010) in O.S.No.797 of 2009 is under challenge. Petitioner was a one time manager of the respondent which is engaged in advancing loan on the security of gold ornaments. Alleging that on account of the conduct of petitioner giving loan to one E.S.Raji on the security of spurious gold it suffered loss, respondent is said to have appropriated the fixed deposit of the petitioner. Petitioner sued the respondent for realisation of money contending that he has not violated any of the norms and guidelines prescribed in the matter of issue of gold loan. The suit was resisted by the respondent. In the course of trial petitioner filed I.A.No.6131 of 2010 for a direction to the respondent to produce certain documents. Documents sought to be produced are the gold loan register for the period 2002-2009, loan applications pertaining to 19 gold loans of E.S.Raji (to whom loan is said to have been granted by petitioner on the security of spurious gold) and minutes book of meeting of Board of Directors of respondent. According to the petitioner, he has not violated any guideline fixed by the respondent in the matter of issue of gold loan and to prove the manner in which gold loan was being sanctioned, sought production of the above said documents. Learned Sub OP(C)No.1063/2010 2 Judge by order dated 30.09.2010 allowed I.A.No.6131 of 2010 and directed respondent to produce the documents. Respondent produced the documents mentioned in Ext.P4. The documents produced are gold loan register from August,2006 to October, 2006, 17 of the 19 gold loan applications and the relevant records of loan issued to E.S.Raji and the minutes book of the meeting of the Board of Directors of the respondent. Petitioner filed Ext.P5, application to direct the respondent to produce the remaining documents (as prayed for in I.A.No.6131 of 2010 and allowed as per order dated 30.09.2010 passed therein). Petitioner also filed Ext.P6, application for production of the general ledger and annual report claiming that on verification of the documents produced, it was found that there was cross reference to those documents. Learned Sub Judge passed Ext.P7, order rejecting Exts.P5 and P6, applications. 2. Learned counsel has contended that all the documents mentioned in I.A.No.6131 of 2010 (which are not produced as seen from Ext.P4, list) and Exts.P5 and P6, applications are necessary to prove the case pleaded by petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that once the documents are produced it is sufficient that petitioner obtains certified photocopies of the relevant pages of the registers and other documents so that the original registers and documents could be returned to the respondent if it is required for the day-to-day business of respondent. OP(C)No.1063/2010 3 3. So far as I.A.No.6131 of 2010 is concerned it is admitted by learned counsel that minutes book of the meeting of the Board of Directors requested in that application is produced. What remains is the gold loan registers for the period from 2002-2009 (except the gold loan registers already produced by the respondent and referred to in Ext.P4) and the first two gold loan applications made by E.S.Raji out of 19 loan applications. Learned counsel contended that documents referred in Ext.P6, application is also required to prove the practice which was prevalent in the matter of issue of gold loans. Having heard learned counsel and gone through the relevant records, I am inclined to allow the request. Resultantly this Original Petition is allowed. Ext.P7, order is set aside and Exts.P5 and P6, applications will stand allowed. Respondent shall produce the documents as prayed for in Exts.P5 and P6, applications and the gold loan registers (except those already produced) and the first two of the 19 gold loan applications made by E.S.Raji (referred to in I.A.No.6131 of 2010) or file affidavit in case respondent is not in possession of the said documents within the time as may be fixed by the learned Sub Judge. It is made clear that if the original documents produced by the respondent are required for its day-to-day business, OP(C)No.1063/2010 4 petitioner shall obtain certified photocopies of relevant pages of the relevant documents at his expense so that the original documents could be returned to the respondent. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks