IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32396 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.268/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT,VARKALA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SANTHAKUMARI ANTHARJANAM, W/O.SASIDHARA BHATTATHIRI, VALMBIRI PILLI MADOM, CHANGAYIL KONAM, MADAVOOR DESOM & VILLAGE. 2. MANJUSHA, D/O.SASIDHARA BHATTATHIRI, VALMBIRI PILLI MADOM, CHANGAYIL KONAM, MADAVOOR DESOM & VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUSEELA AMMA, D/O.SAROJINI AMMA, SAJI BHAVAN, CHANGAYIL KONAM, MADAVOOR DESOM & VILLAGE. 2. SAJI, S/O.SUSEELA AMMA, SAJI BHAVAN, CHANGAYIL KONAM, MADAVOOR DESOM & VILLAGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.32396 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs: i. to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, setting aside the Ext.P8 order passed by the Munsiff Court, Varkala. ii. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to file an affidavit, which shows the details about the prayer in Ext.P6. 2. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.268 of 2007 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Varkala. Suit is one for declaration of title and for setting aside a document. Respondents are the defendants in the suit. Suit property WPC.32396/09 2 originally belonged to one Sasidharan Bhattathiri, the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of the 2nd plaintiff. After the death of the above said Sasidharan Bhattathiri, it has come to the knowledge of the plaintiffs that the 1st defendant claiming to be the wife of Sasidharan Bhattathiri, had created some documents. The 2nd respondent also claims to be the son of Sasidharan Bhattathiri in his relationship with the 1st defendant. Sasidharan Bhattathirir had no such wife or son, is the case of the plaintiffs. From the submissions made by the counsel, it is seen that the trial of the case is in progress. The defendants in the suit have disputed the case of the plaintiffs contending that 1st defendant was the wife of Sasidharan Bhattathiri and 2nd defendant, his son. The 1st defendant produced some documents, the veracity of which, is disputed by the plaintiffs. The 1st defendant had produced an attested copy of the third page of the S.S.L.C book of the 2nd defendant and also the facing sheet of the passport issued to that defendant to substantiate their case that Sasidharan Bhattathiri is shown as his father in both the documents. Plaintiffs have disputed the genuineness of both WPC.32396/09 3 the documents contending that there are some corrections over the name of the father in the attested copy of the third page of the S.S.L.C book, and some material discrepancy in the entries in the relevant page of the passport, as that document show the name of Sasidharana Battathiri differently in two places. Whereas the surname of the 2nd defendant is shown as Sashidharan Battathiri in the above document, at a different place it is shown as Sasidharan Pillai. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs, since the documents, copies of which are produced in the petition as Ext.P5, prima facie, disclose that the entries thereof cannot be accepted on its face value, an application was moved seeking for production of the originals documents and also for other details to enable the plaintiffs to cause production of certificates from the concerned department/agencies after due verification. The learned Munsiff has, however, dismissed the application moved by the plaintiffs vide Ext.P8 order holding that the 2nd defendant had been set ex parte earlier. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the 2nd defendant had moved for setting aside the order declaring him ex parte, WPC.32396/09 4 filing his written statement as well, and that in fact that had already been allowed by the court. So much so, it is submitted that the request made by the plaintiffs had been dismissed without examining the merit of that request but for other reasons which cannot be sustained. 3. Perusing Ext.P8 order with reference to the other materials tendered in the writ petition and also taking note of the submissions made by the counsel, I find it is open to the petitioners/plaintiffs to take such measures as are necessary to show that entries in Ext.P5 documents are incorrect. They cannot seek the assistance of the defendants to disprove their own case. From the plaint allegations, it is seen, the plaintiffs know full particulars of the defendants and they also hail from the same locality. To seek for details from the defendants as to in which school the 2nd defendant studied, in the given facts of the case, by moving an application before the court, can never be appreciated. Similarly, as regards the particulars shown in the passport of the 2nd defendant also, petitioners/plaintiffs can collect the required details from the WPC.32396/09 5 concerned department, for which, no directions/orders can be sought for from the court for supply of such details from the defendants in the suit. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in Ext.P8 order passed by this Court. However, I make it clear that on the basis of the evidence let in the case, if the court finds that the production of the original S.S.L.C. book or the passport of the 2nd defendant is warranted, Ext.P8 order will not stand in the way of the court in directing the 2nd defendant to cause the production of those documents. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp