IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2011 / 2ND BHADRA 1933 OP(C).NO. 2794 OF 2011(O) ---------------------------------------- OS.424/2004 OF III ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS: ------------------------------------------- 1. EDOLI NAFEESA, W/O.VALAPPIL KOLLIKUNI KUTTU HAJI, AGED 62 YEARS, B.K.HOUSE, VELOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 2. SUBAIR, S/O.VALAPPIL KOLLIKUNI KUTTU HAJI, AGED 42 YEARS, B.K.HOUSE, VELOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOYILNADY TALUK. 3. SHAKKEELA, D/O.VALAPPIL KOLLIKUNI KUTTU HAJI, AGED 40 YEARS, B.K.HOUSE, VELOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 4. JUMAILA, D/O.VALAPPIL KOLLIKLUNI KUTTU HAJI, AGED 62 YEARS, B.K.HOUSE, VELOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ SMT.M.SHAJNA RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. PATHUMMA, W/O.VALAPPIL KOLLIKUNI KOYA MOIDEEN HAJI, AGED 78 YEARS, KAVIDICHAYIL, VELOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 2. MOIDEEN KOYA, S/O.VALAPPIL KOLLIKUNI KOYA MOIDEEN HAJI, AGED 56 YEARS, KAVIDICHAYIL, VELOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 3. KUNJEEBI, D/O.VALAPPIL KOLLIKUNI KOYA MOIDEEN HAJI, AGED 56 YEARS, KAVIDICHAYIL, VELOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 4. NAFEESA, D/O.VALAPPIL KOLLIKUNI KOYA MOIDEEN HAJI, AGED 60 YEARS, KAVIDICHAYIL VELOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 5. HAMEED, S/O.VALAPPIL KOLLIKUNI KOYA MOIDEEN HAJI, AGED 48 YEARS, KAVIDICHAYIL, VELOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 6. RASEENA, D/O.VALAPPIL KOLLIKUNIL KOYA MOIDEEN HAJI, AGED 53 YEARS, KAVIDICHAYIL, VELOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 7. PUTHIYOTTIL KUNHEEBI, W/O.VALAPPIL KOLLIKUNI KOYA MOIDEEN HAJI, AGED 68 YEARS, KAVIDICHAYIL, VELOOR DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.(C) NO.794 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.424 OF 2004 ON THE FILES OF THE III ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANTS 1 TO 6 IN O.S. NO.424 OF 2004 ON THE FILES OF THE III ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION IN I.A. NO.384 OF 2009 ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS LIST SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT IN O.S. NO.424 OF 2004 ON THE FILES OF THE III ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS LIST IN I.A. NO.3466 OF 2010 IN O.S. NO.424 OF 2004 ON THE FILES OF THE III ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN I.A. NO.463 OF 2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION IN O.S. NO.424 OF 2004 ON THE FILES OF THE III ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.3.2011 IN I.A. NO.463 OF 2011 IN O.S. NO.424 OF 2004 ON THE FILES OF THE III ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.2794 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 24th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner filed I.A. No.463 of 2011 in O.S No.424 of 2004 in the court of learned Additional Sub Judge-III, Kozhikode to direct the respondents produce certain documents . The suit is for specific performance of an (alleged) agreement for sale dated 18.04.1994. Respondents in answer to I.A. No.463 of 2011 filed counter stating that they are not in custody of the documents sought to be produced. That was taken into account by the learned Sub Judge and the application was dismissed. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that respondents are in custody of the documents sought to be produced and that documents after 2004 have already been produced by the respondents. Hence their version that they are not in possession of the documents referred to in I.A. No.463 of 2011 cannot be believed. 2. When the respondents stated that they are not in custody of the documents sought to be produced and no material is produced to show that the said statement is not true, the O.P(C) No.2794 of 2011 -: 2 :- question of directing them to produce the documents did not arise. Learned Sub Judge cannot be said to have gone wrong in dismissing I.A. No.463 of 2011. I do not find reason to interfere. Original Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv