IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2011 / 31ST SRAVANA 1933 OP(C).No. 2732 of 2011(O) --------------------------------------- OS.NO. 99/2007 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER -------------------- T.P.TOMY, AGED 51, S/O.PAULOSE, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT 28/1406, THALIYATH HOUSE, K.P.VALLON ROAD, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI-682020, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR SRI.P.VISWANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. MRS.BABY, AGED 62, CHEMMALII HOUSE, MANNAMTHURUTH, VARAPUZHA, PIN-683 517. 2. BINOY, AGED 40, S/O.LATE RAMAKRISHNAN, CHEMMALII HOUSE, MANNAMTHURUTH, VARAPUZHA, PIN-683 517. 3. BIJU, AGED 42, S/O.LATE RAMAKRISHNAN, CHEMMALII HOUSE, MANNAMTHURUTH, VARAPUZHA, PIN-683 517. 4. BINDU SURESH, AGED 38, W/O.SURESH, PARAPPILLY VEETTIL, KADAVANTHARA, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, PIN CODE-683 517. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts OP(C)NO.2732/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.99 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARUR. P2 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN OS NO.99 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARUR. P3 COPY OF THE EXPERT OPINION SUBMITTED IN OS NO.99 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL SUB COURT, NORTH PARUR. P4 COPY OF THE IA NO.2108 OF 2011 IN OS NO.371 OF 2007, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARUR. P5 COPY OF THE IA NO.2042 OF 2011 IN OS NO.99 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARUR. P6 COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN IA NO.2042 OF 2011. P7 COPY OF THE IA NO.2041 OF 2011 IN O.S.NO.99 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARUR. P8 COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN IA.NO.2041 OF 2011. P9 COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.2042 OF 2011 IN OS NO.99 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARUR. P10 COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.2041 OF 2011 IN O.S.NO.99 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARUR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.2732 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.99 of 2007 of the court of learned Principal Sub Judge, North Paravur. Petitioner filed that suit on 26.02.2007 against respondents for specific performance of an agreement for sale allegedly executed in favour of petitioner on 25.11.2004 in respect of the suit property. Respondents, learned counsel for petitioner submits, disputed some of the endorsements in the agreement in question. Petitioner was examined as PW1. At that time the agreement was sent to the expert for opinion. The expert gave Ext.P3, report. Later, PWs 2 and 3 were examined. The 2nd respondent was examined as DW1. DW1 produced a copy of decree in O.S.No.371 of 2007 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge, North Paravur obtained by one K.P.Suresh for similar relief with respect to the same property against respondents 1 to 4. Thereon, petitioner filed Exts.P5 and P7, applications to call for documents relating to O.S.No.371 of 2007 from the court of learned Additional Sub Judge and also to re-open the evidence of petitioner. Those applications were resisted by respondents 1 to 4. Learned Principal Sub Judge by Exts.P9 and P10, orders dismissed the said applications which are under challenge in this proceeding. OP(C) No.2732/2011 2 2. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that there are sufficient materials to show that the compromise decree in O.S.No. 371 of 2007 was obtained by the respondents and the said K.P.Suresh to defeat the genuine claim of petitioner. It is also submitted by learned counsel that petitioner has already obtained certified copies of the relevant documents to be proved in evidence and that petitioner may be given opportunity to adduce further evidence by re-opening the case. 3. Learned counsel for respondents contend that a perusal of Ext.P5, application would show that it refers to documents even prior to the filing of the suit. 4. Assuming that some of the documents relate to the period prior to the institution of the suit I am not inclined to think that for the said reason alone petitioner should be deprived of an opportunity to adduce further evidence. Some of the documents petitioner wanted to introduce in evidence are related to the claim and the decree in O.S.No.371 of 2007 referred above. Filing of the said suit and decree therein according to the petitioner, came to his knowledge only when DW1 gave evidence regarding that. In the circumstances I am inclined to think that since learned Principal Sub Judge declined to call for the documents relating to O.S.No.371 of 2007(and rightly), petitioner ought to have been given opportunity to produce certified copies of the relevant documents and OP(C) No.2732/2011 3 for the said purpose, re-open the evidence. In these circumstances I am inclined to allow this petition to the extent it related to re-opening of the evidence to adduce further evidence by the petitioner. Resultantly this Original Petition is allowed. Ext. P10, order is set aside. I.A.No.2041 of 2011 (in O.S.No.99 of 2007) of the court of learned Principal Sub Judge, North Paravur will stand allowed. Petitioner will be given opportunity to adduce further evidence. Needless to say that if respondents want to adduce further evidence after the evidence of petitioner is over, respondent will also get opportunity for that. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks