Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SANKARAN BHATTATHIRIPPAD versus RADHAKRISHNA KURIES (P) LTD.

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SANKARAN BHATTATHIRIPPAD v. RADHAKRISHNA KURIES (P) LTD. - WP(C) No. 2592 of 2007(H) [2007] RD-KL 1844 (23 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 2592 of 2007(H)

1. SANKARAN BHATTATHIRIPPAD,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. RADHAKRISHNA KURIES (P) LTD.,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

Dated :23/01/2007

O R D E R

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

W.P.(C) .NO. 2592 OF 2007 Dated 23rd January 2007

J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is plaintiff and respondent defendant. Before completing evidence of plaintiff petitioner/defendant filed I.A.3989/06, an application for a direction to plaintiff to produce day book and ledger and loan application contending that those documents are relevant and necessary to prove that disputed promissory note was not executed by petitioner and there is no transaction as claimed by respondent. Under Ext.P4 order learned Munsiff dismissed the application for the sole reason that petition is belated.

2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard.

3. Argument of learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that learned Munsiff should not have dismissed the application only on the ground of delay as plaintiff could have produced the document and learned Munsiff has not even posted the petition for 2 objection.

4. Ext.P3 order shows that application was dismissed only on the ground of delay. Question whether documents are relevant or necessary was not considered by learned Munsiff. If a party is in possession of a document which throws light into the controversy, even without an application by the other side, he has a duty to produce the same and if not necessary inference can be drawn. In such circumstance, Ext.P4 order is quashed. Learned Munsiff is directed to re-consider I.A.3989/06 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed accordingly. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,

JUDGE.

uj.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.