CELINE Vs. MARY MATHA EDUCATION SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition is filed by the fourth defendant in O.S. No. 801 of 2008, on the file of the II Additional Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara. The trial court dismissed the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs. On appeal by the plaintiffs as C.M.A. No. 37 of 2008, the lower appellate court set aside the order of the trial court and granted temporary injunction. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment in C.M.A. No. 37 of 2008. Her grievance is that though she applied for certified copy of the judgment, copy was not issued to her. On verification by the Registry, the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara informed that the petitioner had filed an application for copy of the judgment on 31.1.2009. Stamps were called for on 17.2.2009 and they were supplied on 18.2.2009. It was also informed that the other defendants have also filed copy applications and that all the applications will be complied with jointly on production of stamps in all the connected applications. It is stated that that is the practice that is being followed in complying with the copy applications. It was thought that the practice followed in the Subordinate Courts in not issuing certified copy to an applicant unless and until stamp papers are produced in all the copy applications in the case is not a sound practice. Therefore, even though the relief prayed for in the Writ Petition has become infructuous, counsel were invited to address their arguments on that question. On a request made to the Bar to address the Court on the question, Sri. O. Ramachandran Nambiar, a senior member of the Bar, came forward and assisted the court in disposing of the matter.

(2.) Rule 246 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala reads as follows:

(3.) There is no other provision which is relevant in this context Rule 246 provides for priority in dealing with copy applications. The applications for copies shall be dealt with in accordance with the serial order of the applications. In a given case, several parties may make separate applications for copies. When a copy application is filed, a number will be assigned to that application. There is no provision enabling making any priority among the copy applications submitted in a particular case except in the manner provided in Rule 246. There is no statutory support for the practice that is being followed in subordinate courts whereby all the copy applications in a particular case would only be complied with simultaneously. If such a practice is followed, an unscrupulous litigant can defeat the interests of his opponent and prevent him from approaching a higher forum at least for quite some time. For example, an order is passed in a case, which is against the contention of one of the parties. He applies for an emergent copy of the order. The opposite party or opposite parties can prevent that copy application being complied with urgently, by filing copy applications and by not supplying the requisite stamps in their copy applications. By adopting such a method, one party can delay the issue of a copy to the other party, thereby causing delay in approaching the appropriate higher forum in appeal or revision or writ petition. On the other hand, if the copy applications in a particular case are complied with in accordance with the priority and also in accordance with the priority in complying with the requisite requirements by the parties, there would be no difficulty. Even if one of the parties does not supply the requisite stamps, the other party who has supplied the stamps earlier can be given the urgent copy, though his copy application was filed subsequent to the copy application filed by the defaulting party. On such occasions, I am of the view that it is not the priority in making the copy application in a particular case as among the parties to that case that is relevant, but the urgency of the situation and the promptitude with which one of the parties complies with the mandatory requirement of supplying stamps. If such a practice is adopted, nobody would have any complaint that his copy application was not complied with because of the lapse on the part of his opposite party to supply the requisite stamps for complying with his copy application. Reasonableness and fairness demands that a person who requires an emergent copy should get it emergently, without his rights being defeated at the instance of his opposite party by adopting some undesirable tactics.