IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2010 / 8TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2283 of 2010(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04/ 01/2010 IN IA.6649/2009 IN OS.710/2004 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): PLAINTIFF RAJU, S/O.VELUTHAKUNJU, THANIMA, VAIKKAL PADINJATTETHIL, MEENATHU CHERRY, KAVANADU, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) SRI.P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANTS 1. BHAVANI, D/O.CHELLAMMA, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PAZHANGALAM JUNCTION, MUTTARA P.O., ODANAVATTOM, KOTTARAKKARA, FROM KUZHIYILAZHIKATHUTHARA, KAIKULANGARA VADAKKU CHETTY, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE. 2. AJITH, S/O.MANIYAN, ANANTHU BHAVAN, KAIKULANGARA CHERRY, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(c).No.2283 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28 th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT The plaintiff in O.S.No.710/2004 on the file of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Kollam is the writ petitioner. He challenges Ext.P4 order dated 4.01.2010 passed by the learned Munsiff dismissing his application filed as I.A.No.6649/2009 to summon the filing sheet, the finger print register etc. from the Sub Registry office, Kollam pertaining to the impugned document for the purpose of sending the same to the fingerprint expert for an opinion. 2. The suit, filed on 1.9.2004, is, inter alia, for a declaration that a document of the year 2001 purportedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of the 1st defendant is null and void and not binding on Plaint A Schedule property. He also seeks to set aside the said document as well as subsequent document executed by the 1st defendant. According to the plaintiff, he had not executed the sale deed W.P.(c)No.2283 of 2010 2 of the year 2001 registered as document No.106 of 2001 in the Sub Registrry Office, Kollam and that document was got executed through impersonation. 3. As mentioned earlier the suit was of the year 2004. The plaintiff did not do the needful when the case was posted for the pre-trial steps. After posting the case for pre-trial steps, the case was included in the list for trial to 11.10.09. On that day it was got removed from the list putting forward medical grounds. Subsequently, the case was again listed for trial on 4.1.10 when the plaintiff filed the above petition. The learned Munsiff was fully justified in dismissing the application holding that the plaintiff had been given sufficient opportunities to apply for and cause production of documents and the present application filed at a belated stage was bereft of bona fides. In the normal course the suit should have been over long ago. I am not inclined to interfere with the discretion properly exercised by the learned Munsiff. In case the verdict in the suit goes W.P.(c)No.2283 of 2010 3 against the plaintiff, for the reason that he did not cause production of the original records from the Sub Registry Office, this order will not preclude the plaintiff from canvassing the correctness of the impugned order in an appeal filed by him. Reserving this, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. Dated this the 28 th day of January, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj