IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2008 / 18TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20645 of 2008(G) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER : ------------------- ROSSY, AGED 50, D/O.LONAPPAN, MALIYAKKAL HOUSE, KOOVAKATUKUNNU, MELOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS : ---------------------- 1. JOY @ OUSEPH, S/O.KAREDAN LATE CHAKUNNY, KOOVAKATUKUNNU DESOM, MELOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. ANNAM @ ANNAMKUTTY, D/O.LONAPPAN, MALIYAKKAL HOUSE, KOOVAKATUKUNNU, MELOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... WP(C).No. 20645 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF JULY, 2008 JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for a direction to the Munsiff Court, Chalakudy to issue certified copy, sought for, under Ext.P5 copy application. Under Ext.P5, petitioner applied for certified copies of the orders in I.A.Nos.1701 of 2007, 1781 of 2007, 2092 of 2007 and 2090 of 2007. That copy application is seen filed on 3.4.2008. It was dismissed on 4.4.2008 as 'rejected'. The photocopy of the petition with the orders shows that, that order was passed, pursuant to an office note of the same day, which reads:- “Order date is not correct. Hence this C.A may be rejected”. On the outer side of the docket of that copy application, the date of the order, the certified copy of which was applied for is shown as 31.3.2008. On the inner page, the date of the order is now seen as 30.3.2008. The case of petitioner is that the date was subsequently manipulated and copy application was in fact for the order dated 31.3.2008 and learned Munsiff was not justified in rejecting the application, especially when the outer sheet WP(C) 20645/2008 2 shows that the date of the order is 31.3.2008 itself. 2. Learned counsel pointed out that under Rule 241A of the Civil Rules of Practice, when applications are returned for rectification of defects, a time limit of 7 days shall be fixed for their representation and defective applications which are not taken back by parties and which are not represented within the period fixed, shall be struck of by the Chief Ministerial Officer and therefore even if the date of the order shown is not correct, learned Munsiff should have returned the application and should not have rejected the copy application. 3. There is force in the submission. When the order in I.A.1701 of 2007 and connected petitions was passed on 31.3.2008 and the outer sheet of the copy application shows the date of the order as 31.3.2008, even if it is taken that the date of the order 30.3.2008 shown in the copy application was not a manipulation but a mistake, learned Munsiff should not have rejected the copy application for that reason and instead, should have granted an opportunity to the petitioner to cure the defect and only if the copy application is taken back and not represented after correction or not taken back, the application should have been rejected. In such circumstances, the order WP(C) 20645/2008 3 rejecting copy application under Ext.P5 is quashed. Learned Munsiff is directed to proceed with the copy application in accordance with law. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-