AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Two applications submitted before the court below by the plaintiffs, one for re opening the evidence and the other for calling upon the defendant
Nos. 1 to 3 to produce the particulars relating to the Tandaper Account Nos. 9733 and 5358 of Aluva Village were dismissed by the court below by
Exhibit P9 order dated 18-01-2021. The aggrieved plaintiffs challenge the order in this O.P.
Heard the learned counsel for the respondents as well as the learned Government Pleader.
The request for calling for production of Tandaper Accounts was turned down by the court below relying on the Rule 120(3) of the Civil Rules of
Practice, Kerala. This provides that summons should not be issued for production of original documents except when the original is shown to be
essential. On hearing the counsel appearing on both sides, I am of the opinion that nothing has been disclosed before the court below which justified
calling for the production of original Tandaper Account Nos. 9733 and 5358 of Aluva Village.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that original Tandaper Accounts contained certain endorsements made by the officials which will go
a long way to give inference as to the regularities practiced by them in manipulating the entiries in the records. I am of the opinion that if application
for issue of certified copies of Tandaper Account Nos. 9733 and 5358 before the concerned village office, is submitted by the plaintiffs in the suit, the
authorities concerned shall deliver the copies of the records with all endorsements contained therein.
The court below has indicated that the application for re-opening of evidence was made after the case was closed on request of the petitioners
themselves. However, after hearing the parties, I am of the opinion that an opportunity shall be given to the plaintiffs to re-open their case for further
evidence and tender the certified copy of Tandaper Account Nos. 9733 and 5358 also if produced in evidence in support of their case. In the light of
the forgoing discussion made, the impugned order requires to be partially modified.
In the result, O.P. is allowed in part directing the court below to re-open the case for evidence and give the petitioners reasonable opportunity to
adduce the requisite evidence in support of their case subject to what is stated above.