IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2009 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 24778 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.98/2006 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOY MATHEW, S/O.KURIAN MATHEW,AGED 55, THATHAMPALLIYIL THAYYIL HOUSE,ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.S.VAIDYANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KARUNAKARAN, S/O.RAMAN PUTHEN VELIYIL, C.M.C.20, CHERTHALA. ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.ADEEP ANWAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX(WPC 24778/09) PETITIONER'S EXTS.: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.NO.98 OF 2006 OS SUB COURT, CHERTHALA DATED 9.11.2006 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE DATED 21.8.2006 ISSUED BY AN ADVOCATE AS INSTRUCTED BY THE PLAINTIFF TO THE DEFENDANT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 22.8.06 ISSUED BY THE DEFENDANT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANT IN O.S.NO.98/06 OF SUB COURT, CHERTHALA. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.625/09 FILED BY THE PLAINTT ON 21.5.09 IN O.S.NO.98/06 OF SUB COURT, CHERTHALA. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.627/09 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN O.S.NO.98/06 OF SUB COURT, CHERTHALA. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.657/09L FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN O.S.NO.98/06 OF SUB COURT, CHERTHALA. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED 20.6.2009 PASSED BY SUB COURT, CHERTHALA IN I.A.NOS.625, 627 & 657 OF 2009 IN O.S.NO.98/06. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C)nO.18379/09 DATED 1.7.2009 BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.NO.625/09 IN O.S.NO.98/06 DATED 14.8.09 PASSED BY SUB COURT, CHERTHALA. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.NO.627/09 IN O.S.NO.98/06 DATED 14.8.09 PASSED BY SUB COURT, CHERTHALA. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.NO.657/09 IN O.S.NO.98/06 DATED 14.8.2009 PASSED BY SUB COURT, CHERTHALA. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.24778 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 30th October, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed seeking mainly the following prayer: “To set aside Ext.P11 and P12 orders in I.A.No.627 of 2009 and I.A.No.657 of 2009 in O.S.No.98 of 2006 of the Sub Court, Cherthala.” 2. The writ petition is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.98 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Cherthala. The trial of the case is in progress, and at the stage after the evidence of the plaintiff was treated as closed, plaintiff sought for his further examination to explain some statements made during his cross examination and also for examination of two other witnesses named in the additional witness schedule. No petition was filed for reopening of the evidence. The learned Sub Judge dismissed those applications and it was challenged before this court by the plaintiff filing a writ petition. That writ petition was disposed vide P9 judgment directing the court below to permit the plaintiff to examine him again and also to produce his pass book from the bank, if so desired. Reopening of the evidence of the plaintiff was permitted only to that extent. However, the learned Sub Judge misconstruing P9 judgment passed by this court allowed W.P.C.No.24778/09 - 2 - all the three applications moved by the plaintiff on the premise that this court has ordered to do so. P10, P11and P12 are those orders passed on the three applications moved by the plaintiff. Correctness and propriety of the above orders are challenged in the Writ Petition by the defendant invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. Perusing P10 to P12 orders with reference to P9 judgment and also the submissions made by the counsel on both sides, I find except P10 order, the other two orders, P11 and P12, cannot be sustained and they are liable to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that production of the pass book by itself, though permitted by this court, may require the examination of competent witness to prove its validity. Production of pass book from a bank is permitted vide P9 judgment. It is open to the respondent/plaintiff to produce the certificate relating to the entries in the pass book as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act. The writ petition is disposed as above. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE W.P.C.No.24778/09 - 3 -