JANET MATHEW MATHEW FERNANDEZ Vs. THAREESA AMMA JOHNSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit is one for a declaration that the plaint 'C' schedule property is a public path way. The plaintiffs filed an application to receive two documents and reopen the evidence which had been closed. The same has been turned down by the court below by the order impugned which is challenged by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contend that one of the documents sought to be produced is a sale deed which shows the existence of the disputed pathway. The other documents are the purchase certificate and a report from the land tribunal which are necessary to contradict to the documents produced by the defendants. It is of course true that the relevancy of the documents have not been mentioned by the plaintiffs in the application filed to reopen the evidence.

(2.) Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure enables the court to receive in evidence the documents produced after granting leave. I feel that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants if the plaintiffs are afforded an opportunity to establish the relevancy of the documents and seek for admitting it in evidence. I set aside the order impugned and remand I.A.No.5882/2010 in O.S.No.1554/08 on the file of the court of the Addl. Munsiff of Thiruvananthapuram. The Plaintiffs shall file an additional affidavit seeking leave to receive the documents in evidence in terms of order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. This is subject to the condition that the plaintiffs pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as costs to the counsel for the defendants in this original petition within a month. I pass such an order since laches on the part of the plaintiffs is evident in not taking steps earlier. The impugned order will remain intact in case the plaintiffs omit to pay the costs as directed in time. Needless to say that the court below shall make every endeavor to dispose of the suit expeditiously within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.