High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
BAKKER HAJI, S/O. BEERAVU HAJI v. MUHAMMED MUSLIYAR - WP(C) No. 19253 of 2005(P)  RD-KL 15736 (16 August 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 19253 of 2005(P)
1. BAKKER HAJI, S/O. BEERAVU HAJI
1. MUHAMMED MUSLIYAR,
2. ABDUL KHADER, S/O. KUNHI MOIDU,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.W.P.(C) NO. 19253 of 2005
Dated this the 16th day of August , 2007
The writ petition is remaining defective on the reason that the 2nd respondent is not served with notice. But I find that there is appearance for the first respondent. There are no conflicting interests between respondents 1 and 2. Moreover the issue according to me can be decided even in the absence of the 2nd respondent.
2. I do not find any infirmity on Ext.P5 warranting interference by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution under supervisory jurisdiction. Ext.P5 is the order in an application (I.A.No.3371/2004) filed by the petitioner under Order 11 Rule 14 of the CPC for production of certain registered documents. The learned sub Judge under Ext.P5 dismissed the application observing that there is no merit in the I.A. According to me the order which the learned Judge was expected to pass on the application filed by the petitioner was to direct respondents to produce the original of the documents or to file an affidavit regarding their inability to produce. In view of the conceded position that the documents called for were the registered WPC No.19253/2005 2 documents, Ext.P5 can be sustained and I dismiss the writ petition. But I direct the learned sub Judge to grant at least one month's time to the respondent for production of certified copies of the documents in question. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.