GOMATHY v. THE SECRETARY

The petitioner, who was the plaintiff before the Arbitrator, is aggrieved by the fact that, through Ext.P6 order on I.A.No.154 of 2014 in Appeal No.18 of 2014, the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, has permitted the appellant in the appeal (respondent herein) to adduce oral evidence and to produce certain documents, which were not brought before the Arbitrator. It is submitted that there is absolutely no justification in the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal allowing I.A.No.154 of 2014. W.P.(C) No.5893/2015 -:3:- It is submitted that large number of documents are sought to be produced on the basis of a bald averment that, they could not be produced before the Arbitrator, as they could not be traced out during the time when the matter was pending before the Arbitrator. It is submitted that the documents might have been manipulated and, relevance of the documents, sought to be produced, has also not been revealed in the application filed for accepting additional documents. Learned counsel for the petitioner further referred to Ext.P5 objections filed in I.A.No.154 of 2014 in Appeal No.18 of 2014 to contend that there was no justification for allowing I.A.No.154 of 2014.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Bank on the other hand would submit that the question of relevance of the documents sought to be produced before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal and the question as to whether they can be accepted as evidence are matters to be decided by the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal. It is submitted that, going by the provisions contained in W.P.(C) No.5893/2015 -:4:- Rule 122 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the proceedings before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, unless expressly excluded. It is submitted that going by the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, additional evidence can be accepted even at the appellate stage. It is submitted that the provisions of Rule 115 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules also indicate that the respondent was entitled to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference with Ext.P6 order of the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal on I.A.No.154 of 2014 in Appeal No.18 of 2014. The said order proceeds to record that the documents now sought to be produced by the respondent (appellant before the Tribunal) were documents which according to the appellant could not be produced at the W.P.(C) No.5893/2015 -:5:- time when the proceedings were pending before the Arbitrator as they were not in the immediate possession of the respondent at the time when the proceedings were progressing before the Arbitrator. A reading of Rules 115 and 122 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, together with the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure indicate that there is absolutely no bar in the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal accepting additional evidence at the appellate stage, provided, there are sufficient circumstances for accepting such evidence. While the relevancy or the admissibility of any document could still be questioned by the petitioner, I find no ground made out for interfering with the decision taken by the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal to allow I.A.No.154 of 2014 in Appeal No.18 of 2014, especially taking note of the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules noticed above and the provisions of order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which apply to proceedings before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal. Writ petition fails and it W.P.(C) No.5893/2015 -:6:- is accordingly dismissed.

5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, considering the fact that Appeal No.18 of 2014 has been pending for consideration before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal from the year 2014, a direction may be issued to the Tribunal to dispose of Appeal No.18 of 2014 within a time frame. I consider this request to be reasonable. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, to endeavour to dispose of Appeal No.18 of 2014 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE W.P.(C) No.5893/2015 -:7:- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5893/2015 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION ARC NO 1535/2002 FILED U/S 69 OF THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE SOCITIES ACT DTD NIL EXHIBIT P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DTD 31/7/2013 IN ARC NO 1535/2002 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL)CHIRAYINKEEZH, THIRUVANATHAPURAM EXHIBIT P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE COPY OF THE APPEAL NO 18/2014 BEFORE THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD 17/2/2014 EXHIBIT P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO 154/2013 IN APPEAL NO 18/2014 BEFORE THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD 18/8/2014 EXHIBIT P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD 23/10/2014 IN IA 154/2013 IN APPEAL NO 18/2014 BEFORE THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 29/12/2014 IA NO 154/2013 IN APPEAL NO 18/2014 BEFORE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM