THRISSUR CORPORATION v. P.V. VINOD
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 17 Jul 2009
- Bench
- S S SATHEESACHANDRAN
Outcome
Set aside
P4 order is set aside andthe learned Munsiff is directed to provide the defendant anopportunity to explain the cause, if any, for the nonproductionif at all it is satisfied that a further enquiry in the matter isrequired
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. XI r. 21
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Havingregard to the submissions made and also the facts and circumstances presented, I find Ext.P4 order passed by the learned Munsiff cannot be sustained for more than one reason. Where a party fails to produce the…
Judgment
WP(C).No. 16890 of 2009(O)A P P E N D I XEXHIBITS FOR THE PETITIONER :-EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.1512/07 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR DATED 3.6.07.EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST DEFENDANT IN MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR IN O.S.1512/07, DATED NIL.EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT I.A.6186/07 IN O.S.1512/07 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR, DATED 2.7.07.EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.1.09 IN I.A.6186/07 IN O.S.1512/07 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR, DATED 30.1.09.EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE PETITION AND AFFIDAVIT IN I.A.3314/08 IN O.S.1512/07 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR, DATED 31.3.08.EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE COUNTER DATED 10.8.08 EXT.P5 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.EXHIBITS FOR THE RESPONDENTS : NIL.//TRUE COPY//P.A.TO JUDGEami S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.-------------------------------W.P.(C).NO.16890 OF 2009 (O)-----------------------------------Dated this the 17th day of July, 2009J U D G M E N TThe writ petition is filed by a local authority, Corporationof Thrissur, which is sued as a defendant in a suit filed by the respondents seeking a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction so as to restrain the authority from taking any action from evicting the respondents forcefully and unlawfully from a bunk scheduled in the plaint and also removing of that bunk. Petitioner/defendant on appearance before the court below filed written statement disputing the allegations in the plaint contending that the suit itself is not maintainable and the respondent is not entitled to the relief sought for. Respondent/plaintiff thereupon moved an application for production of the file relating to the details of license issued to the bunk maintained by the defendant. That being not produced within the time but only a location sketch alone was tendered, the learned Munsiff passed an order to strike of thepleadings of the defendant. Ext.P4 is the copy of that order. Correctness and propriety of Ext.P4 order is impeached in this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with WPC.16890/092this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Notice was served on the counsel appearing for the respondent before the court below since the earlier notice sent through the court was returned 'unserved'; the respondent has not entered appearance after such service.
Operative part
I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Havingregard to the submissions made and also the facts and circumstances presented, I find Ext.P4 order passed by the learned Munsiff cannot be sustained for more than one reason. Where a party fails to produce the documents despite an order of the court, the court cannot straight away strike out the pleadings of the party without giving him an opportunity to explain reasons, if any, for nonproduction. Further more, striking out pleadings of a party should not be resorted to unless the court is satisfied there has been obstinacy orcontumacy on the part of the party for wilfully discarding of the order of the court. The defendant is a local authority andit may have justifiable reasons for nonproduction of the file which was sought to be summoned by the respondent/plaintiff. Without having any enquiry as to whether the defendant has WPC.16890/093justifiable cause for nonproduction and not providing it any opportunity, it is seen by Ext.P4 order, the pleadings of that local authority was struck of. The order is patently erroneous and unsustainable in law and against the mandate covered under Order XI Rule 21 of CPC. Unless it is established that there is wilful failure of the order of the court in thenonproduction of the documents, at the most, only adverse interference alone need be taken if at all there was default inproduction of a documents summoned by the court at the instance of the opposite party. Ext.P4 order is set aside and the learned Munsiff is directed to provide the defendant an opportunity to explain the cause, if any, for the nonproductionif at all it is satisfied that a further enquiry in the matter is required. Writ petition is disposed with the above observations. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGEprp
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: P4 order is set aside andthe learned Munsiff is directed to provide the defendant anopportunity to explain the cause, if any, for the nonproductionif at all it is satisfied that a further enquiry in the matter isrequired
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XI r. 21.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 17 Jul 2009. The bench was S S SATHEESACHANDRAN.
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.