SYAMALA BHASKARAN Vs. RAMACHANDRAN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed challenging the dismissal order of the Additional Sub Court, Thrissur, in I.A.No.4799 of 2015 in O.S.No.129 of 2014. The said I.A was filed under Order 11, Rule 1 of CPC for a direction to the 3rd defendant in the suit to answer whether the handwriting in a statement of account produced along with the plaint was in the handwriting of the 3rd defendant.

(2.) The said application was dismissed mainly on two grounds; i.e, the leave from the Court was not obtained, as well as on the ground that as per the written statement of the defendant in paragraph no. 11, it was specifically denied that the so called endorsement was not done by the 3rd defendant. Under such circumstances, lower court found that the application cannot be allowed.

(3.) When the petition came up for hearing, the learned Counsel Sri. K.S. Satheesh Babu appearing for the petitioner submitted before this Court that as per the reported decision by this Court, Omega Crown v. Thomson reported in 2012 (3) KLT 573 , the leave is not necessary. After going through the said decision, it was only held that a separate application for "leave" need not be therein. In paragraph no. 5 of the impugned order, the Court categorically wrote as follows: "At the very outset, it is to be noted that the interrogatory is filed by the plaintiff without seeking any sanction from the court." The inference is that, no leave was granted by the Court, in this regard, before considering the I.A. Order 11, Rule 1 of CPC is quoted below: