IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21241 of 2008(D) -------------------------- OS.393/2003 of ADDL.SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ K.B.LATHIKA, W/O.K.A.RAGHUNATH, RESIDING AT GALAXY APARTMENTS, PANNIYANKARA, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. RAJESWARI, W/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT 15/24, VRINDAVAN, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. PONNAMMAL, W/O.BALAKRISHNA CHETTIAR, RESIDING AT KRISHNA KRIPA, VIDYAVILASINI ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. HARIDAS CHETTIAR S/O.BALAKRISHNAN CHETTIAR, RESIDING AT HARISREE, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. MOHANAN, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN CHETTIAR, RESIDING AT ANUGRAHA, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. RATHINAM, W/O.VENUGOPAL, RESIDING AT RATNASREE, KADAVATH ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. DEVADAS, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN CHETTIAR, RESIDING AT KRISHNAKRIPA, VIDYAVILASINI ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. W.P.(C) No.21241 of 2008 : 2 : 7. JAYASREE, W/O.SHANMUGHAM, RESIDING AT AMBATTUPARAMBA, DESOM, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 8. RAMESHAN, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN CHETTIAR RESIDING AT KRISHNA KRIPA, VIDYAVILASINI ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 9. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN CHETTIYAR RESIDING AT KRISHNA KRIPA, VIDYAVILASINI ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21241 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 15th July, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the fifth defendant in a suit instituted by first respondent plaintiff for partition. Plaint A to K schedule properties are sought to be divided. Petitioner filed I.A.Nos.2324 and 2323 of 2008 which are dismissed under Exts.P5 and P6 orders. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash those orders. 2. Under Ext.P6 order, learned Sub Judge only dismissed the petition to remove the suit from the special list. That was dismissed for the reason that the suit is an old suit on the file of the court. I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P6 order. 3. Under Ext.P5 order, I.A.No.2324/2008 was dismissed. Ext.P3 is the copy of I.A.No.2324 of 2008. It was a petition filed by petitioner for a direction to defendants 1 to 3 and 6 to 9 to produce documents. It was dismissed under Ext.P5 for the reason that petitioner did not mention which are the documents to be W.P.(C) No.21241/2008 2 produced and it appears that there is no bonafides in filing the petition. Ext.P3 affidavit only shows that petitioner sought a direction to produce the anterior title deeds of the properties without specifying which are the documents to be produced and the reasons for the production. 4. Petitioner is not entitled to get an order directing defendants to produce the documents. If the documents sought to be produced are the anterior title deeds of the property which jointly belong to the parties, petitioner could definitely get the details of the documents. She could also get registration copies of the documents. Unless original documents themselves are necessary, defendants cannot be directed to produce the documents. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P5 order also. Writ petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.