IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 24081 of 2009(R) -------------------------- OP.1311/2006 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. REETHAMA JACOB, AGED 80 YEARS, W/O.LATE JACOB JOSEPH, MAKOM, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, NEYYATTINKARA. 2. PUSHPAMMA.M.R., AGED 47 YEARS, D/O.VASUDEVA PANICKER, MAKOM, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, NEYYATTINKARA. 3. GLADYS.T.A. ALIAS SHINY, AGED 32 YEARS, W/O.SUNNY JACOB, THOTTATHILSSERY HOUSE, DEVAPALAN NAGAR, PERURKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.GOPINATHAN SRI.NELSON ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SMITHA STANELY, D/O.P.J.STANELY, PARASSERY HOUSE, MURIKKUPADAM, AZHEEKAL P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARIRANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(C).No.24081 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of August 2009 J U D G M E N T BASANT,J The petitioners are the respondents in O.P.No.1311 of 2005 pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam. The respondent herein is the daughter-in-law of the 1st petitioner and the O.P is filed by her claiming return of ornaments etc. In that O.P, the respondent filed an application requesting the court to summon witnesses along with certain documents. Objections were raised. The court called for clarification. Additional affidavit and counter affidavit were filed. Ultimately, Ext.P5 order was passed by the Tribunal, inter alia calling upon a witness, that is the Branch Manager of the K.S.F.E, Kamaleswaram branch where the 2nd petitioner is employed, to produce copy of the service book of the 2nd petitioner. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. 2. We must note that the original petition was filed as early as in 2005. It must be the endeavour of everyone now to ensure that the O.P is disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Against the impugned order, which is an interlocutory order, no appeal is maintainable under Section 19 of the Family Court W.P.C No.24081/09 2 Act. That is precisely the reason why this petition has been filed requesting the court to invoke its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. We must alertly remind ourselves that such jurisdiction is not to be invoked as a matter of course. Judicial sagacity has to be shown in choosing a fit case where such extraordinary jurisdiction can or ought to be invoked against an interlocutory order passed in proceedings pending before the court against which the legislature has advisedly proscribed an appeal. We must confess that from a reading of the materials placed before us, it is not possible for us to precisely ascertain the nature of the relevance of the service book to the dispute before the Family Court. On a consideration of the entire materials placed before us, it is seen that the respondent asserted that the said document is not relevant. The court below held that the said document can be summoned. 3. How and in what manner would justice fail or miscarriage of justice occur, if the said document is summoned? The only submission of the learned counsel is that the summoning of the service register of the petitioner may send a wrong message to her colleagues and superiors about herself. That is the only precise grievance raised. W.P.C No.24081/09 3 4. At the moment and with the available inputs, it appears to be impossible for us to come to a positive finding about the relevance of the service register which is directed to be summoned. But any and every inadequacy, in an interlocutory order passed by a subordinate tribunal shall not persuade this court to invoke its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that in the interests of expeditious disposal of O.P.No.1311 of 2005 in which the trial appears to be commencing at long last, it is not necessary to admit this writ petition. Objections about relevancy can certainly be raised by the petitioners when the document is sought to be proved. At any rate, we are not satisfied that Ext.P5 order warrants interference invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 5. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. We reiterate that, at the time when the document is sought to be introduced, the question of relevance can be raised and, if raised, must be considered by the Family Court. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARIRANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C No.24081/09 4 W.P.C No.24081/09 5 W.P.C No.24081/09 6 R.BASANT & M.C.HARIRANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009