IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 26497 of 2010(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/07/2010 IN IA.2256/2010 IN OS.95/2008 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- T.K.SURSH, S/O. KOCHURAMAN, THEKKETHARA HOUSE, KOTTANELLUR, OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA SRI.CHINNAN T.K. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- 1. KERALA DHANA VYAVASAYA KURIES & LOANS (P) LTD., REP. BY CHAIRMAN, REGD. OFFICE AT SHORNUR ROAD, CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680001. 2. CHITRA SURESH, W/O. T.K.SURESH, THEKKETHARA HOUSE, KOTTANELLUR, OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680006. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.26497 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2010. JUDGMENT Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.95 of 2008 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Thrissur is the petitioner before me challenging Ext.P4, order granting leave to respondent No.1/plaintiff to serve interrogatories on petitioner and respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 sued petitioner and others for recovery of money allegedly due on the strength of a kuri transaction which petitioner has denied. He denied execution of documents relied on by respondent No.1 and even wanted the disputed documents to be sent to the expert for opinion. At that stage, respondent No.1 wanted to serve interrogatories on petitioner and respondent No.2 and for the said purpose filed I.A.No.2256 of 2010. That application is allowed by Ext.P4, order which is under challenge. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that respondent No.1 has not obtained leave of the court to serve interrogatories on petitioner and respondent No.2 and further that the interrogatories are irrelevant and unnecessary. According to the learned counsel, even on matters denied by petitioner in the written statement interrogatory is attempted to be served. WP(C) No.26497/2010 2 2. I have gone through the order under challenge. It is seen from Ext.P4, order that learned Sub Judge being convinced that interrogatories are relevant has allowed the application (seeking leave of the court for serving interrogatories on petitioner and respondent No.2). Hence, the contention that leave has not been obtained before serving interrogatory cannot be sustained. 3. Next question is whether interrogatories are relevant. Learned Sub Judge has observed that considering the rival contentions, the request for leave to serve interrogatories is to be allowed. It follows that according to the learned Sub Judge interrogatories are relevant for a decision. The mere fact that petitioner has denied execution of the documents and transaction does not prevent him from answering the interrogatories. Learned Sub Judge has exercised discretion in favour of allowing the request to serve interrogatory. I do not find reason to interfere with the order under challenge. Writ Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks