IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36344 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.151/2005 of M.C.,PARAPPANANGADI .................... PETITIONER: --------------- CHELLIKATTIL KAMALAKSHI, D/O. AYYAPPAN @ APPUNNI, RAYIRIMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, PALLI ROAD, CHIRAKKAL, TANUR.P.O., TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.JAMSHEED HAFIZ RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. CHELLIKKATTIL DAKSHAYANI, D/O. AYYAPPAN @ APPUNNI, RAYIRIMANGALAM, AMSOM DESOM, PALLI ROAD CHIRAKKAL, TANUR.P.O., TIRUR TALUK. 2. CHELLIKKATTIL LAKSHMI, D/O.AYYAPPAN @ APPUNNI, RAYIRIMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, PALLI ROAD, CHIRAKKAL, TANUR.P.O., TIRUR TALUK. 3. AZEEZ, S/O. BERANKANATH ABDUL KHADER, RAYIRIMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, PALLI ROAD, CHIRAKKAL TANUR.P.O., TIRUR TALUK. 4. PARAPPURATH RAJAGOPALAN @ PREMAN, S/O. LATE LAKSHMI, RAYIRIMANGALAM, AMSOM DESOM, PALLI ROAD, CHIRAKKAL, TANUR.P.O., TIRUR TALUK. 5. PARAPPURATH UDAYAN, S/O. LATE LAKSHMI, RAYIRIMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, PALLI ROAD, CHIRAKKAL TANUR.P.O., TIRUR TALUK. 6. KUNHIMON, S/O. KALATHIL SAIDALIKUTTY, RAYIRIMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, PALLI ROAD, CHIRAKKAL, TANUR P.O., TIRUR TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.36344 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.151 of 2005 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi. The above suit, after trial, being dismissed they have preferred an appeal before the Sub Court, Tirur. The appeal, it is submitted, is admitted and received on the file of that court. Meanwhile, they have applied for return of some of the documents already exhibited in evidence substituting certified copies of such documents. That application was declined by the learned Munsiff for the reason the appeal is pending. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 3. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note that the documents which are sought to be returned are registered deeds and that petitioners are prepared to substitute W.P.(C).No.36344 of 2009 - O 2 them with certified copies with undertaking to produce the originals if ordered, I direct the learned Munsiff to examine the request afresh in the light of the proviso to Order XIII Rule 9 of the CPC and pass appropriate orders. I make it clear that the pendency of the appeal need not be taken as an interdiction restraining the court in exercising jurisdiction on the application filed under Order XIII Rule 9 of the CPC. Writ petition is disposed of as above. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-