IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 913 of 2008(H) ------------------------------------ OS.422/2004 OF I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- T.R.N.DRILLERS, 47, 7TH CROSS, BHARATHI PARK ROAD, COIMBATORE, REP. BY PARTNER, T.R.NANJAPPAN. BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE, SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO, SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J., SMT.PRAISHEEL PRAKASAM, SMT.NISHA JOHN, SRI.K.B.ARUN, SMT.ELIZEBETH MEERA, SRI.P.J.VINOD JOSEPH, SMT.NITHARA GAYATRI. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- STEEL INDUSTRIALS KERALA LTD., ATHANI, THRISSUR, REP. BY GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND, SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.913/2008-H: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. 422/04 DT. 15/05/04 OF SUB COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S. 422/04 OF SUB COURT, THRISSUR DT. 29/10/04. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 12/10/07 IN I.A. 6182/07. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 12/10/07 IN I.A. 6181/07. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DT. 17/10/07 IN I.A. 6181/07. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 23/10/07 IN I.A. 6434/07. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 23/10/07 IN I.A. NO. 6436/07. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 6181/07 DT. 06/11/07. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 6182/07 DT. 06/11/07. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. 6434/07 DT. 06/11/07. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. 6436/07 DT. 06/11/07. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 913 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is preferred to direct the respondent to produce documents mentioned in Ext.P4 and to quash the orders passed in Exts.P8 to P11. Ext.P8 is an order whereby the plaintiff in the suit wanted the original of Exts.A1 and A2 and copy of A6 to be produced by the defendant for the purpose of the case. It is contended that when copies of Exts.A1 and A2 were attempted to be marked it was objected by the respondent/defendant on the ground that it is only a copy of the document which cannot be admitted in evidence. Admittedly the original of the document is with the defendant. 2. The defendant has got a contention that at the time of execution of the document two documents were returned one was retained by the plaintiff and the other by the defendant. But there is no such evidence before the W.P.C 913 OF 2008 -:2:- Court that the defendant is in custody of the original of Exts.A1 and A2. He can either admit the plaintiff to mark Exts.A1 and A2 as the true copies or if he wants to raise an objection then when summoned he has to produce that document, i.e., the original of Exts.A1 and A2. Therefore I direct the defendant in the case to produce the original of Exts.A1 and A2. 3. So far as Ext.A6 is concerned it is for the plaintiff to produce the original for the reason he was the recipient of the letter sent by the defendant. Unless he has got a case that the preliminary evidence is lost he cannot ask for a copy to be produced. So I do not interfere with the order of the Court below in relation to Ext.A6. 4. In the other application the challenge is refusal to accept the registration certificate in evidence. It is contended that at the initial stage there was no dispute regarding the registration and therefore when it is disputed it has to be produced. I direct the plaintiff to produce the original of the certificate before Court with a copy and the W.P.C 913 OF 2008 -:3:- Court on verification of the copy with the original can return the original to the plaintiff and it can be marked in evidence. Since I have directed production of original of Exts.A1 and A2 and also the production of the registration certificate necessarily the matter has to be reopened and further evidence tendered. In case any further evidence is necessary parties are at liberty to adduce oral evidence to prove those documents. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-