IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No.32630 of 2008 (H) ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/10/2008 IN I.A.5254/08 IN OS.272/2005 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SURYA CONSTRUCTIONS, PALACE ARCADE, STATUE JUNCTION, TRIPUNITHURA - 682 301, ERNAKULAM, REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MATHEW KALARICKAL, KALARICKAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKAMBALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.BABU THOMAS SMT.MARYKUTTY BABU SRI.DENNING K.BABU RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. KERALA POLICE HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD., CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, STADIUM, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM - 695 033, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KERALA POLICE HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD., CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR STADIUM, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM - 695033. 3. M/S.THOMAS PANICKER AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS, C.C.13/1850, NO.V, AVITTOM ROAD, KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE, TRIVANDRUM - 695 011. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.32630 of 2008 (H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS:- EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S. NO.272/05. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO.5254/08 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A. NO.5254/08. EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT FOR EXTENSION OF TIME. //TRUE COPY// K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.32630 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner before me is the plaintiff in O.S.272/05 pending on the file of the First Additional Sub Judge's Court, Thiruvananthapuram for realisation of an amount of Rs.95,96,000/- and odd that being amount due to them towards balance value of works carried out by him for construction of buildings for the first respondent under an agreement dt.02/07/1998. When the matter stood posted for trial in the list on 23/10/08 the petitioner filed I.A.5254/08 on 10/10/08 namely twelve days before the date of trial praying that respondents 1 and 2 be directed to produce before court the documents relating to the contract work executed for them. The documents so called for are items 1 to 18 which will take in the entire documents in relation to W. P. C. No.32630 of 2008 -2- the construction of a few buildings for the headquarters of the III Battalian of Kerala Armed Police. 2. On going through the documents called for, I am convinced that it takes in all documents in relation to the work executed beginning with the tender notification, contract agreement entered into between the parties etc. and culminating in demand made on 17/02/04 for payment submitting final bill. It is not necessary to deal the nature of documents called for. Suffice to say that the documents when got down will be voluminous and the documents as such cannot be retained in court depriving access to the respondent to those documents for dealing with necessary matters in connection therewith. It was in the circumstances, that the court below ordered production of documents on payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- and also with a further direction W. P. C. No.32630 of 2008 -3- that certified photostat copies of the documents called for, if necessary for the case has to be taken out at the expense of the petitioner/plaintiff and marked in the case, as the originals are to be returned. I can understand the grievance that Rs.10,000/- was ordered to be deposited as cost for payment to the respondent. Such a direction was not proper in the circumstances of the case and therefore, I quash that portion of the impugned order. At the same time, the direction to take out photostat copies of documents at the expense of the petitioner if the petitioner wants them in evidence cannot be faulted as the original documents cannot be retained till the suit reaches its final adjudication at some time in future. All the same, in relation to such of the documents which the respondent/defendant wants to produce in evidence in defence it is for the W. P. C. No.32630 of 2008 -4- defence to do the needful and if any such documents are produced by the defence in evidence to substantiate their defence petitioner need not cause photostat copies thereof to be taken and retained at his expenses. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails certain observations made in the impugned order against the plaintiff which according to the counsel is incorrect on the facts of the case and the circumstances that will be evidenced by the records in the suit. However, those observations made in Ext.P4 order were only for the purpose of disposing of I.A.5254/08 and that shall have no bearing at all while considering the suit on merits. 4. It is submitted that the cost ordered by the court below has already been deposited by the petitioner in the court below. In view of the order passed by me as aforesaid, the W. P. C. No.32630 of 2008 -5- petitioner is entitled to get back the amount from court on their application. 5. With the above directions, I dispose of this Writ Petition. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-