IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25683 OF 2008(G) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/06/2008 IN IA.231/2008 IN OS.13/2006 of MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYOLI .................... PETITIONER: -------------- KIZHAKKE VALAPPIL GOPALAN,S/O CHOYI, RESIDING AT MANCHAKKUNIYIL, AGED 68 VANMUKAM AMSOM, KATALUR DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS SRI.SRINATH GIRISH SMT.M.LISHA RESPONDENT: --------------- B.K. NARAYANAN, S/O KORAN, AGED 37, CONTRACT WORK, BHAGAVATHI KOTTAKKAL HOUSE, VANMUKAM AMSOM, KATALUR DESOM, KOYILNADY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO.25683 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondent the defendant in O.S.13 of 2006 on the file of Munsiff-Magistrate Court, Payyoli. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging Ext.P7 order passed by the Munsiff in I.A.231 of 2008, filed under Rule 14 of Order VII of Code of Civil Procedure to receive a document as evidence. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, petitioner did not show any reason why the document was not filed earlier. Under Ext.P7 order learned Munsiff dismissed the application. 2. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that suit is based on a promissory note and therefore there is no necessity for production of the document produced along with I.A.231 of 2008 along with suit and reason for the delay in production of the document was stated in the application for amendment filed and in such circumstances learned Munsiff should have allowed the application. WP(C)25683/08 2 3. Ext.P7 order shows that in the written statement respondent disputed execution of the promissory note and at the instance of the petitioner promissory note was sent to an expert for his opinion and expert has given opinion that signature seen in the promissory note is not that of the respondent. It is thereafter the document is produced before the Court contending that the document contains an acknowledgement of execution of the promissory note. Learned Munsiff found that if that be the case petitioner would have produced the document earlier. I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in Ext.P2 order. 4. Rule 14 of Order VII mandates that it is not only the documents based on which the suit is instituted but also documents which are relied on in support of the claim which shall be entered in a list and shall be produced in Court when the plaint is presented. Sub rule 3 of Rule 14 of Order VII provides that such document shall not be received as evidence without the leave of the Court at the time of hearing of the suit. Inspite of this provision petitioner did not mention any reason why the document was not produced earlier in the petition. In WP(C)25683/08 3 such circumstances writ petition is dismissed. Petitioner is at liberty to challenge Ext.P2 order along with the final judgment, if it goes against him. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-