IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3691 of 2008(M) -------------------------------------- (OS.1710/2006 OF IST ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT.,THRISSUR) .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- THANKAPPAN, AGED 53, S/O.CHANKOTH PADIKKAL KRISHNAN, KOTTEKKAD DESOM, KUTTUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL), ADV. SMT.R.RAJITHA. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- K.K.SUBRAMANIAN, AGED 44, S/O.KARUMATHIL KUTTAPPAN, VALIYAPARAMBU DESOM, KUTTUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== W.P.C. No.3691 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 31st day of January 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred to set aside the orders in I.A.Nos.296 and 297 of 2008 in O.S.No.1710/2006. The suit is one for realisation of the amount due to the defendant on the strength of a promissory note. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff and the defendant are known to each other. In the written statement, the defendant totally denies any acquaintance with the plaintiff and further would contend that when he paid a reduced fare in an auto rickshaw owned by the defendant a promissory note is created and a suit is instituted. I do not want to say anything further on the defence. When the defendant was put in the box, he was cross examined showing a photo copy of the bond to show that the plaintiff has stood as a surety in a kuri taken in the name of the defendant's son and the defendant acting as the guardian. I feel the said document will have a clinching impact on the whole case. Therefore the court should not have refused permission to summon that document. It is a settled principle that when a document is tendered at the time of cross examination of a witness WP(C) 3691/2008 -:2:- and when it is denied then the person who relies upon should be given an opportunity to produce the same and prove the same. I think the court below has lost sight of the principle and that has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Therefore I set aside the orders passed by the court below and allow I.A.Nos.296 & 297 of 2008 and direct the court below to summon the document, reopen the case and if necessary to recall the witness and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-