Sivarajan vs Santhosh Kumar

I.A. No.1 of 2020 was filed by the petitioner-defendant in OS 118/2010 pending before the First Additional Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking reception of witness schedule and documents. The application was allowed in so far as the prayer for reception of witness schedule was concerned, but was rejected in so far as it relates to reception of documents. Aggrieved by the order in so far as it rejected the prayer for reception of documents, this original petition is filed by the defendant.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

The suit as amended is one for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The claim of the plaintiff is on the strength of a sale deed executed by the defendant in his favour. The contention of the defendant is that the document executed by him in favour of the plaintiff was only as a security for loan transaction and was not intended or operative as a sale.

The trial in the suit commenced on 02.03.2020, and the evidence of the plaintiff is over. It is thereafter that the defendant filed the present application seeking reception of witness schedule as well as documents. The court was of the opinion that the documents produced have no relevance with reference to the pleadings. The court also took note of the prior conduct of the defendant in getting the suit adjourned on several occasions and of the fact that the suit is of the year 2010, and dismissed the application.

The documents sought to be produced, apparently seem to relate to the possession of the property by the defendant. The defendant has a contention that in spite of the execution of the document in question styled as "sale deed", he continued in possession of the property. Be that as it may, any evidence adduced without any pleadings would not be of any avail to any of the parties.

Whether the evidence adduced is relevant, acceptable and is founded on necessary pleadings are all matters to be considered by the court at the time of final hearing. While it is true that the defendant-petitioner should have been more vigilant in conducting the case, it is only just and equitable that the parties be given a fair opportunity of trial which includes opportunity to adduce evidence. It is only proper that the petitioner-defendant be permitted to produce the documents as sought for. The inconvenience caused to the respondent-plaintiff can be compensated by way of costs.

In the result, this original petition is allowed. Ext.P6 order in so far as it rejected the prayer to accept the documents will stand set aside and the application IA 1/2020 will stand allowed on condition that the petitioner pays to the counsel appearing for the respondent before this Court an amount of `2,500/- as costs, on or before 08.01.2021. Trial of the suit shall continue. I make it clear that I have not expressed anything on the merits of the case or regarding the relevancy or otherwise of the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner-defendant.