Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The original petition is disposed of as above
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
- Passports Act, 1967 s. 17
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. XIII r. 9
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. I however permit the respondent to take back thepassports of herself and her family members produced in court. This will be subject to the condition that the respondentfurnishes Bank Guarantee or deposits a sum of Rupees OneLakh in the court below as security for…
Judgment
V.CHITAMBARESH, J.-------------------------------O.P.(C) No. 2281 of 2012-------------------------------Dated this the 10th day of October, 2012J U D G M E N TThe suit is one for realisation of a sum of Rs.1,53,000/-with interest on the basis of a dishonoured cheque. Thepetitioner/plaintiff had produced the passports of thedefendant/respondent and her family members along with theplaint. The contention of the petitioner is that it has spentRs.1,53,000/- for the proposed travel of the respondent and herfamily. It is conceded that the respondent had arranged an European Tour with the assistance of the petitioner. Therespondent filed an application in the suit to return the passportsto her. This has been allowed unconditionally by the courtbelow. The said order is challenged by the petitioner in thisoriginal petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner relies on Section 221 of the IndianContract Act to contend that an Agent is entitled to retain thegoods, papers and other property till the amount due to him ispaid by the Principal. Reliance is also placed on the passportitself which states that 'an agent is a lawful custodian of the O.P.(C) No.2281 of 20122passport belonging to the principal'. The petitioner thereforeasserts that the passport cannot be permitted to be taken by therespondent unconditionally without any security being offeredfor the plaint claim.
The respondent on the other hand contends thatthe petitioner is not an authorised agent. It is also contendedthat the petitioner has not spent Rs.1,53,000/- as alleged. Reliance is placed on Section 17 of the Passports Act, 1967 tocontend that passport is the property of the CentralGovernment only.
The question whether the petitioner is anauthorised agent or not has to be decided in the suit only. Similarly the question whether the petitioner has spentRs.1,53,000/- is a matter for evidence. The fact howeverremains that it was the petitioner who produced the passport ofthe respondent and her family in court. It is also not disputedthat the cheque issued by the respondent to the petitioner wasdishonoured.
Order XIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure O.P.(C) No.2281 of 20123only permits the return of the document to the person whoproduced it. It is surprising as to how the court below permittedthe respondent to have the documents produced by thepetitioner. The court below has directed the petitioner to takeback the passports and hand it over to the respondent. This hasbeen directed to be done without imposing any condition whatso ever.
I am of the firm view that sufficient safeguardsshould be provided to the petitioner for the plaint claim. Theunconditional direction to handover the passports to therespondent pending suit was unwarranted. I set aside the orderin I.A.No.2014 of 2012 in O.S.No.1455 of 2011 on the file of thecourt of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Thiruvananthapuram.
Operative part
I however permit the respondent to take back thepassports of herself and her family members produced in court. This will be subject to the condition that the respondentfurnishes Bank Guarantee or deposits a sum of Rupees OneLakh in the court below as security for the plaint claim. This O.P.(C) No.2281 of 20124shall be done within a period of one month from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this judgment. The court below shalldispose of the suit untrammelled by any observation containedin the order impugned. The original petition is disposed of as above. Nocosts. V.CHITAMBARESH,Judge. nj.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The original petition is disposed of as above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; Passports Act, 1967 — s. 17; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XIII r. 9.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.