IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2008 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7758 of 2008(W) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.452/2008 IN OS.214/2002 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- MOHANDAS, S/O.CHARAKKUMALIL DAMODARAN, KULUKKALLOOR AMSOM DESOM IN OTTAPPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KAMALADEVI, D/O.KANJINGATTU PUTHENVEETTIL LATE AMMALU AMMA, KURUVATTOOR AMSOM, KOYILIYAD DESOM IN OTTAPPALAM TALUK. 2. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.KAMALADEVI, KURUVATTOOR AMSOM, KOYILIYAD DESOM IN OTTAPPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI. E.R.VENKATESWARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 7758 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of March, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Ottapalam in I.A.452/08 in O.S.214/02. It was an application filed for reopening the evidence and also to summon the filing sheet from the Sub Registrar's office, Pattambi with respect to document No.22/75 of that Office(Registered as a Will). The Court below dismissed the application saying it is highly belated and it is against that decision the present writ petition is preferred. 2. The learned counsel would submit before me that it is an important piece of document which will go to the root of the case and therefore refusal to summon that document will amount to mis-carriage of justice and so prays for indulgence. 3. At the out set I may like to point out unless steps are taken under Section 66 of the Evidence Act to summon W.P.C 7758 OF 2008 -:2:- for the original of the document from the person who is in custody of the same secondary evidence cannot be straight away admitted in the case of Wills. Even otherwise, under the provisions of the Evidence Act a secondary evidence is permissible only when primary evidence cannot be procured. Therefore the stage has not come to call for the filing sheet from the Sub Registrar's Office. Since it is submitted that it is a valuable piece of document to decide the case, I permit the writ petitioner herein to file a proper application as envisaged under relevant provisions of the Evidence Act, exhaust those provisions and then move for getting the document by way of secondary evidence. In order to facilitate the writ petitioner to do so I direct the Court below not to dispose of the case or proceed with the trial till a decision is taken on these matters. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-