The petitioner is the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.510 of 2009 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha as well as the petitioner in I.A.No.3782 of 2011 filed therein. The suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff to realise an amount of ₹ 51,733/- with interest from the petitioner. The original suit was listed for trial on 16/11/2011. On that day, it was submitted that the respondent has no oral evidence and documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A6. Ext.A4 is the original of Policy bearing No.761004/21/05/02/00000007, which was produced along with the suit. The petitioner did not object the marking of the said document in evidence. On 18/11/2011, the petitioner's counsel submitted that they also have no oral evidence even though the manager of the petitioner company was present before the court. However, they insisted to mark the documents produced by them as Exts.B1 to B4. The petitioner insisted to mark the certified copy of the policy with additional pages containing policy conditions, which was not found along with Ext.A4. The marking of the said document was objected by the respondent's counsel stating that the additional pages are subsequently inserted one and the learned Munsiff refused to mark the said document and marked the other documents only as Exts.B1 to B3. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed the above I.A for re-opening the evidence in order to mark the copy of the policy with the policy conditions. However, after hearing both parties, the court below dismissed the said I.A. by the impugned order under challenge. The legality and propriety of the said order is under challenge in this original petition.
2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner advanced arguments in support of the grounds raised in the original petition. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent advanced arguments to justify the findings in the impugned order. The short question to be considered is whether there is any illegality or impropriety in dismissing the application for re-opening the case to mark the document.
3. Going by the impugned order, it is seen that when the respondent/plaintiff marked Ext.A4 original policy issued by the petitioner, the petitioner had no objection to mark the said document. It is also pertinent to note that, Ext.A4 original policy was produced along with the suit and the petitioner had sufficient opportunity to verify the same. The petitioner had no case that Ext.A4 original policy is an incomplete document. When the case was posted for defence evidence, the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner company had no oral evidence but made an attempt to mark four documents including the certified copy of the original policy with some additional pages which was not found with original policy, marked as Ext.A4 by the respondent. The respondent objected the same, contending that the certified copy of the policy condition which was attempted to be marked with the certified copy of Ext.A4 was not a part of the original policy issued to the respondent.
4. After verifying the certified copy which was attempted to be marked without examining the respondent, the court below found that genuineness of the document is suspicious as that part of the document, which was objected by the respondent was seen attested by a person other than the person who attested the policy portion of the document. The court below observed that from the perusal of the document, it could be seen that the document is not attested in the same time by the same person. I cannot find fault with the said observation made by the court below, after perusing the document sought to be marked. Needless to say, the policy conditions can never be treated as one which was issued to the respondent along with Ext.A4.
5. But, I am of the opinion that, even though, the policy condition which was attempted to be marked cannot be treated as a part of the original policy which was marked as Ext.A4 by the respondent, the petitioner can be allowed to mark independently a copy of the policy condition alone through a competent witness if the petitioner wants to do so. It is made clear that the same will not form a part of Ext.A4. Evidence can be re-opened to that extent only.
The original petition is disposed of.
Stu //True copy// P.A to Judge K.HARILAL, JUDGE.