IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2011 / 20TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3197 of 2010(O) ------------------------------------ OS.179/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, PEERUMEDU .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- HIGH RANGE SNDP UNION ADMINISTRATOR, K.M.SANTHOSH KUMAR, HIGH RANGE SNDP UNION OFFICE, MUNDAKAYAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA) SRI.A.R.EASWAR LAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ K.A.SURENDRAN, S/O.ACHUTHAN, KATTUCHALIL HOUSE, PERUVABTHANAM.P.O., KOKKAYAR VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.K.JAGADEESCHANDRAN NAIR SRI.J.KRISHNAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt WP(C).No. 3197 of 2010 APPENDIX Petitioner's Exhibits :- Ext.P1 :- Copy of the rules of the SNDP Yogam. Ext.P2 :- Copy of the bye laws of SNDP union. Ext.P3 :- Copy of the bye laws of SNDP shakas. Ext.P4 :- Copy of the plaint in O.S.179 of 2008 on the file of Peermade Munsiff Court. Ext.P5 :- Copy of the I.A.No.733 of 2008 in O.S.179/2008. Ext.P6 :- Copy of the interim order I.A.No.691/2008 in O.S.No.179/2008 on the file of Munsiff Court, Peermade. Ext.P7 :- Copy of detailed counter affidavit in I.A.No.733/2008. Ext.P8 :- Copy of the I.A.No.66 of 2009 in O.S.No.179 of 2008. Ext.P9 :- Copy of the detailed objections. Ext.P10 :- Copy of the summons issued to the petitioner. Respondent's Exhibits :- NIL //True Copy// P.A. to Judge N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.3197 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of January 2011 J U D G M E N T As per Ext.P10 order the learned Munsiff directed the revision petitioner herein to produce certain documents mentioned in Ext.P8. Resisting the request for summoning the documents, objection statement was filed by the petitioner herein. The objection raised by the petitioner was that the documents sought for are not necessary for the determination of the point involved in the application filed by the respondent complaining of violation of the order of injunction. The objection was turned down by the learned Munsiff and summons was issued to the witnesses to produce the documents. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the learned Munsiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC was not violated by the petitioner herein and that no evidence as such is required in that matter. It is a fact that an W.P.(C) No.3197 of 2010 -: 2 :- application was filed by the respondent under Rule 2A of Order XXXIX CPC. What are the documents to be produced to prove the alleged violation of the order of injunction is not supposed to be said by this Court at this stage. The main grievance of the petitioner is that SNDP Yogam is a company whereas the High Range SNDP Union is a Sakha. It is stated that this Sakha is not directly under the control of the Yogam. Any way those are not matters to be dealt with in this writ petition. The grievance voiced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the guise of a petition under Rule 2A of Order XXXIX the respondent is trying to fish out evidence for some other case by collecting documents from the Sakha which are absolutely not necessary for the proper adjudication of the petition filed under Rule 2A of Order XXXIX CPC. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order passed by the court below summoning the witnesses to produce certain documents is not something to be interfered with invoking jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is only visitorial in nature. I find force in that submission. W.P.(C) No.3197 of 2010 -: 3 :- This Court should not interfere in the matter as the court below has only summoned the witnesses to produce documents. The relevancy or otherwise of those documents for the purpose of adjudication of the petition filed under Rule 2A of Order XXXIX CPC will certainly be considered when those documents are brought in evidence. So much so, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Munsiff. The petitioner can either produce the document or file an affidavit to the effect that the documents are not with them, if it is so. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. But it is made clear that, if the documents sought for are produced, the court below should ensure that only those documents which are relevant for the purpose of the case should be admitted and that the respondent should not be permitted to fish out evidence for some other case. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt