IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2011 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1933 OP(C).No. 1250 of 2011(O) ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01/03/2011 IN IA 556/2011 IN OS.331/2008 of SUB COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER:- -------------------- MUHAMMED ALI, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O. NELLIYALI RAYINKUTTY MUDLIYAR, CHERIYAMUNDOM AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 676 301 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT: --------------------- ALUNGAL LATHEEF, S/O. MOIDEEEN HAJI, ANANTHAVOOR AMSOM, VALIYAPARAPPUR DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 676 301 ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 1250 of 2011(O) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF PLAINT IN OS NO. 331/2008 OF THE SUB COURT, TIRUR EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE WRITTEN STAEMENT IN OS NO. 331/2008 OF THE SUB COURT, TIRUR EXT.P3 : COPY OF IA NO. 495/2011 IN OS NO. 331/2008 OF THE SUB COURT, TIRUR EXT.P4 : COPY OF IA NO. 556/2011 IN OS NO. 331/2008 EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE OBJECTION EXT.P6 : COPY OF IA NO. 562/2011 IN OS NO.331/2008 OF THE SUB COURT, TIRUR EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE IA NO. 562/2011 IN OS NO. 331/2008 F THE SUB COURT TIRUR EXT.P8 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 01.03.2011 IN IA NO. 556/2011 IN OS NO.331/2008 OF THE SUB COURT, TIRUR EXT.P9 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.03.2011 IN IA NO. 562/2011 IN OS NO. 331/2008 OF THE SUB COURT, TIRUR EXT.P10 : COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE SMT K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ O.P(C).No.1250 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT The respondent instituted O.S.No.331 of 2008 against the petitioner for realisation of money. The defendant disputed the transaction and disputed his liability to pay the amount. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed an application stating that a Commissioner may be appointed to examine him urgently as he intended to go abroad. The court below allowed that application. The petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.562 of 2011 for a direction to the plaintiff to produce his passport. The court below dismissed the application by Ext.P8 order dated 1st March, 2011, which is under challenge in this Original Petition. 3. The court below held that the passport is not required for a just and proper adjudication of the O.P(C).No.1250 OF 2011 2 case. The court also noticed the submission made by the plaintiff that if the passport is produced and detained in court, he would not be in a position to go abroad after arranging a Visa. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. Taking into account the pleadings and the contentions of the parties, I think the Original Petition can be disposed of with the following directions: i) The plaintiff shall produce the original passport and a notarized true photocopy of the entire passport before the Commissioner appointed for examining the plaintiff. ii) It is stated by the plaintiff that the passport is produced for the purpose of getting the O.P(C).No.1250 OF 2011 3 Visa. As soon as the passport is received by him, he will produce the same along with the copy as mentioned above before the Commissioner with intimation to the counsel for the defendant. iii) The Commissioner shall intimate the counsel for the parties fixing a date for examination of the plaintiff. iv) The original passport shall be returned to the plaintiff after his examination before the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall examine the plaintiff within a period of ten days from the date of intimation from the plaintiff and the production of the passport before the Commissioner. v) It is agreed by both sides that the notarized photocopy of the passport can be marked in evidence. After marking the notarized photocopy of the passport, the original passport shall be returned by the Commissioner to the plaintiff. O.P(C).No.1250 OF 2011 4 vi) The examination of the plaintiff shall be made by the Commissioner on day-to-day basis and no adjournment shall be granted for that purpose. vii) The order impugned in this Original Petition is modified to the above extent. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms