IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25364 of 2009(O) -------------------------- I.A.NO.1297/2005 IN OS.306/1997 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S)/PLAINTIFF: --------------- THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,CORPORATION BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANT: --------------- V.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,COUNSEL SECRETARY (RETD),VALIYAZHIKAM,THEVALLY,KOLLAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.25364 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following relief: i. to call for the records relating to the order dated 12.6.2009 in I.A.No.1297/2005 in O.S.No.306/1997 (Ext.P3) on the file of the Court of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge of Trivandrum and to set aside the same. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.306 of 1997 on the file of the IInd Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Suit is one for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,45,896/- from the respondent which is alleged to have been misappropriated by him while working as the Council Secretary under the plaintiff, namely, Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. WPC.25364/09 2 Admittedly, a vigilance case was registered in respect of the alleged misappropriation committed by the respondent and he has been charge sheeted for various offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. On an application moved by the plaintiff, the records of the vigilance case were summoned from the court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, before the IInd Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Later, on the request made by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, the learned Sub Judge suo motu reviewed the earlier order passed for summoning the records of the vigilance case, and returned those records to the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. Propriety and correctness of the order passed by the learned Sub Judge in suo motu reviewing the order passed in the application for summoning the records and returning them is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts WPC.25364/09 3 and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary, and, hence, it is dispensed with. 4. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the records are so voluminous and it is not feasible to take certified copies of all such documents to substantiate the suit claim raised. Whatever that be, taking note that a vigilance case had been registered against the respondent in respect of the offence involving misappropriation, I find retention of the crime records by the civil court for the purpose of the trial of the suit is not proper and not correct. Any attempt by the plaintiff Corporation for retaining such records in the civil court, no doubt, will delay the trial of the criminal case against the respondent, which is not appreciable. The plaintiff Corporation has to apply for and get certified copies of the relevant documents by moving application before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. That alone is possible, and any other course will prevent and stultify the criminal trial against the respondent. If any application is moved before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge by the plaintiff Corporation within a period of WPC.25364/09 4 one month from the date of this judgment, the Special Judge shall pass appropriate orders on such application and issue certified copies or photo copies of documents, of which copies can be given under law, at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of passing of the orders on the application. The IInd Additional Sub Judge shall keep in abeyance further proceedings in the suit for a period of four months from the date of this judgment to provide reasonable opportunity to the plaintiff to apply for and get certified copies of the relevant documents from the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. Writ petition is closed. Handover a copy of the judgment to the counsel for the petitioner, and send a copy of the judgment to the court below and also to the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvanthapuram forthwith. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp WPC.25364/09 5