Kerala High Court
Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd vs P.V.Mohanan on 22 November, 2019
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1941
OP(C).No.2155 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 12.07.2019 OF II ADDL. SUB COURT, THRISSUR
IN IA 4121/17 IN OS 171/16
-----
PETITIONERS/1ST RESPONDENT/1ST DEFENDANT:
DHANLAXMI BANK LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN OF BOARD OF
DIRECTORS,DHANALAKSHMI BUILDINGS,NAICKANAL,
THRISSUR-01.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.GOPINATH (SR.)
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
P.V.MOHANAN
S/O LATE M.KRISHNA WARRIER,GOPIKA,
NEAR MANATHATHIL TEMPLE,AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR-03.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
R1 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE
R1 BY ADV. SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM
R1 BY ADV. SMT.V.T.LITHA
R1 BY ADV. SMT.K.R.MONISHA
R1 BY ADV. SMT.SHRUTHI SARA JACOB
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.11.2019, THE
COURT ON 22.11.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN, J.
==================
O.P.(C) No.2155 of 2019
==================
Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2019
JUDGMENT
The direction to produce documents, under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC, is assailed in this original petition by the first defendant.
2. The suit is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"A. Declare that the order dated 11.06.2015 terminating the plaintiff from the service of the first defendant is illegal, null and void.
B. Pass a decree allowing the plaintiff to realise from the defendants and their assets, jointly and severally, a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as damages with future interest at the rate of 15% per annum from this date till realisation.
C. Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for by the plaintiff and is deemed fit and proper by this Honourable Court."
3. The services of the plaintiff, who was employed with the 1st defendant, was terminated. The O.P.(C) No.2155 of 2019 :- 2 :-
plaintiff challenges the termination and claims damages which takes in his salary and claim for mental agony. He filed IA 4121/2017 seeking production of various documents by the defendants. The application was opposed by the defendants contending that they have no relevance with the the plaint claim.
4. The court has considered the relevancy of each document. The documents sought for, were found to have some relevance in the background of the plaint allegations or has some significance based on the written statement averments. The same has been taken note of and considered by the court below in the impugned order.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner-first defendant would contend that certain documents sought for, are not in existence at all. It will be open for the petitioner-first defendant to swear to an affidavit with respect to the same. The evidentiary value of each document and how far it will help the plaintiff in proving his case etc. need not be looked into at this stage. As noticed O.P.(C) No.2155 of 2019 :- 3 :-
supra, a foundation for seeking production of the documents prima facie appear from the pleadings.
6. However, three of the documents sought for as serial numbers 11 to 13 needs to be taken exception of. The documents relate to Pension Regulation and Pension Fund. In paragraph 23 of the plaint, after alleging non payment of terminal benefits, pensionary benefits including commuted pension, it is stated thus:-
"The plaintiff is resorting to other remedies available to him against the denial of pension and he is waiting to receive the leave encashment amount. Hence plaintiff is not seeking the relief of realization of the amounts due under these heads in this suit at present".
7. Therefore, the suit does not take in any pensionary claims. It being so the documents sought for as serial numbers 11 to 13 has no relevance and need not be directed to be produced. The order impugned needs to be interfered with to the above extent. But for the limited interference, the order passed by the court below does not suffer from any O.P.(C) No.2155 of 2019 :- 4 :-
illegality and is only to be affirmed, and I do so.
In the result, the Original petition is allowed. The direction in the impugned order insofar as it relates to documents sought for as serial numbers 11 to 13 is set aside. In all other respects the order is confirmed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN JUDGE kns/-
//True Copy// P.S. to Judge OP(C).No.2155 OF 2019 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 14.07.2016 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF AS O.S.NO.171 OF 2016 ON THE FILES OF THE IIND ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT,THRISSUR EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 09.12.2016 FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS IN O.S.NO.171 OF 2016 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 076.11.2017 IN O.S.NO.171 2016 SEEKING A DIRECTION FROM THE COURT TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 13.12.2017 FILED ON BEHALF OF 1ST AND 2ND DEFENDANT IN I.A.NO.4121 OF 2017 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT DATED 06.07.2019 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN I.A.NO.4121 OF 2017 IN O.S.NO.171 OF 2O16.
EXHIBIT P6 True copy of the order dated 12.07.2019 passed by the II Additional Subordinate Judge's Court ,Thrissur in I.A.No: 4121 of 2017 in O.S.No:171 of 2016 EXHIBIT P7 True copy of I.A.No:632 of 2018 dated 08.02.2018 filed by the 1st Defendant before the Sub Court ,Thrissur below in O.S.No:171 of 2016
-----