O.P. (C) No.1974 of 2022

O.P © No.1974 of 2022 1 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1944 OP(C) NO. 1974 OF 2022 ``` ``` AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 12.7.2022 IN I.A. NO.4/2021, 8/2022, 9/2022, 11/2022 & 12/2022 IN A.S. 15/2021 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA ``` ``` PETITIONERS/ RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 IN IAS – RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 ``` ``` IN A.S: ``` ``` 1MARIAMMA GEORGE AGED 80 YEARS W/O JOSEPH GEORGE, VADAKKADATHU HOUSE, KALLELY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 689691. 2MEENU NINAN. AGED 45 YEARS W/O NINAN, VADAKKADATHU HOUSE, KALLELY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 689691. 3SUNU JOJO AGED 51 YEARS, W/O JOJO, VADAKKADATHU HOUSE, KALLELY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689691 4SANA GEORGE AGED 46 YEARS W/O ADV. SANTHOSH MATHEW, VADAKKADATHU HOUSE, KALLELY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 689691. BY ADVS. B.G.HARINDRANATH ARUN THOMAS VEENA RAVEENDRAN ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL ABI BENNY AREECKAL MATHEW NEVIN THOMAS KARTHIK RAJAGOPAL KURIAN ANTONY MATHEW ``` O.P © No.1974 of 2022 2 ``` RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 6 TO 12 IN IA 4/2021/PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 & RESPONDENTS 1 & 6 TO 10 IN I.A.8/2022,I.A.9/2022,I.A.11/2022,I.A. 12/2022/APPELLANTS 1 TO 3 & RESPONDENTS 1 & 6 TO 12 IN A.S ``` ``` 1K.JOHN, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O LATE K.G. JOSEPH, MAMUTTIL ESTATE, OOTTUPARA P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA – 689 691,. NOW RESIDING AT 9-B2 CONDO DAFFODILS,KURVANKONAM, KOWDIYAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003 2USHA GICE GEORGE AGED 70 YEARS W/O GEORGE, VIJAYAPURAM ESTATE, PATTAZHI, EZHAMKULAM, ADOOR, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K. JOHN, S/O LATE K.G. JOSEPH, AGED 67 YEARS, MAMUTTIL ESTATE, OOTTUPARA P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA PIN-689691. NOW RESIDING AT 9-B2 CONDO DAFFODILS,KURVANKONAM, KOWDIYAR P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN – 695003. 3SUSAN ABRAHAM AGED 62 YEARS W/O ABRAHAM GEORGE, KADAMPLAVIL HOUSE, THUMPAMON, ADOOR TALUK, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, K. JOHN, S/O LATE K.G. JOSEPH, AGED 67 YEARS, MAMUTTIL ESTATE, OOTTUPARA P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA PIN-689691. NOW RESIDING AT 9-B2 CONDO DAFFODILS,KURVANKONAM, KOWDIYAR P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695003 4JOHN JOSEPH AGED 72 YEARS S/O GEORGE JOSEPH, VADAKKADATHU HOUSE, KALLELY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA., PIN – 689691. 5K.GEORGE AGED 72 YEARS S/O LATE K.G. JOSEPH, MAMMOOTTIL ESTATE, OOTTUUPARA P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA., PIN - 689691 ``` O.P © No.1974 of 2022 3 ``` 6BINDU JOSEPH AGED 46 YEARS, D/O JOSEPH GEORGE, VADAKKADATHU HOUSE, KALLELY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA ., PIN - 689691 7PAPPY PONNACHAN AGED 65 YEARS S/O OF LATE VARGHESE PAPPY, THOTTUMKARA MURIPPEL HOUSE, OPP. ST. GEORGE MALANKARA CATHOLIC CHURCH, KALLELY, KULATHUMON ROAD, KALLELY P.O. ARUVAPPULAM VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689691 8PAPPY BABY AGED 73 YEARS, S/O LATE VARGHESE PAPPY, THOTTUMKARA MURIPPEL HOUSE, OPP. ST. GEORGE MALANKARA CATHOLIC CHURCH, KALLELY, KULATHUMON ROAD, KALLELY P.O. ARUVAPPULAM VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689691 9KUNJUKUNJAMMA THOMAS AGED 71 YEARS D/O THOMAS, KADUVINAL HOUSE, ARUVAPPULAM VILLAGE, KALLELY P.O., KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689691 10THANKAMMA THOMAS AGED 68 YEARS D/O THOMAS, KADUVINAL HOUSE, KALLELY P.O., ARUVAPPULAM VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRCIT., PIN – 689691. 11MATHEW VARGHESE AGED 44 YEARS D/O THOMAS, KADUVINAL HOUSE, KALLELY P.O., ARUNVAPPULAM VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. , PIN - 689691 BY ADVS. SANITA SABU VARGHESE MANASA BENNY GEORGE THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` O.P © No.1974 of 2022 4 ## **JUDGMENT** Aggrieved by Ext.P13 common order passed in I.A Nos.4/2021, 8/2022, 9/2022, 11/2022 and 12/2022 in A.S No.15/2021 by the Court of the District Judge, Pathanamthitta (Appellate Court), the respondents 2 to 5 in the appeal have filed the original petition. The respondents in the original petition are the appellants 1 to 3 and respondents 1 and 6 to 12 in the appeal. 2. The relevant facts leading to Ext.P13 order are: confronted with Ext.P1 common judgment passed in O.S No.34/2016 by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Pathanamthitta (Trial Court), the respondents 1 to 3 have filed the above appeal. Later, the respondents filed I.A Nos. 4/2021, 8/2022, 9/2022, 11/2022 and 12/2022 (Exts.P3, P3(a), P4, P7, P9 and P11) in the appeal to accept additional documents in evidence. The petitioners O.P © No.1974 of 2022 5 filed their counter affidavits/written objections to the above applications through Exts.P4, P6, P8 and P10. The respondents 1 to 3 have also filed Ext.P12 proof affidavit in the appeal. The Appellate Court, by the impugned Ext.P13 common order, has allowed the applications. Ext.P13 order is manifestly wrong, improper and untenable in law. Hence the original petition. 3. Heard; Sri.B.G.Harindranath, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3. Service is complete on the others. 4. Sri.B.G.Harindranath argued that Ext.P13 order is against the rudimentary principles laid down under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘Code’) and the law laid down on the point by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in a catena of decisions. A bare reading of Ext.P13 order would demonstrate that the court below has not considered the applications and O.P © No.1974 of 2022 6 the objections filed thereto in their proper perspective. The findings in the impugned Ext.P13 order shows that the Appellate Court has swayed itself from one side to the other, being unsure of itself. On one side, the Appellate Court has held that the reasons stated by the respondents 1 to 3 were not justifiable and the applications were vexatious etc., and in the same breathe, the Appellate Court has accepted the documents on record. He placed emphasis on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Arjun Singh v. Kartar Singh and others** [AIR 1951 SC 193] and **Union of India** v **Ibrahim Uddin and Another** [2012 KHC 4379] and the decisions of this Court in **Trivandrum Golf Club v. State of Kerala and others** [2010 (2) KLT 996] and **Mariamma v. Poulose** [2008 (1) KLT 566] to bolster his submissions. 5. Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, on the contrary, defended Ext.P13 order and argued that the respondents 1 to 3 have given cogent reasons for the production of O.P © No.1974 of 2022 7 documents at the appellate stage. The Trial Court had erroneously rejected the acceptance of Annexure-19 by its order in I.A No.20/2020. The documents produced at the appellate stage, are necessary for the proper determination of the appeal. Ext.P13 order may not be interfered by this Court in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The original petition is to be dismissed. 6. The point is whether there is any illegality in Ext.P13 order. 7. The respondents 1 to 3 have filed ExtsP3, P3 (a), P5, P7, P9 and P11 applications to accept the documents mentioned in the applications in evidence in the appeal. The above applications have been opposed by the petitioners through Exts.P4, P6,P8 and P10 counter affidavits/written objections. 8. Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: O.P © No.1974 of 2022 8 ## “ **27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate** **Court.-** (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if— (a) the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. (2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced, by an Appellate Court, the court shall record the reason for its admission.” ## 9. Interpreting the above Order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and another (** supra) has held as follows: “31. Whenever the appellate Court admits additional evidence it should record its reasons for doing so. (Sub-rule 2). It is a salutary provision which operates as a check against a too easy reception of evidence at a late stage of litigation and the statement of reasons may inspire confidence and disarm objection. Another reason of this requirement is that, where a further appeal lies from the decision, the record of reasons will be O.P © No.1974 of 2022 9 useful and necessary for the Court of further appeal to see, if the discretion under this rule has been properly exercised by the Court below. The omission to record the reasons must, therefore, be treated as a serious defect. But this provision is only directory and not mandatory, if the reception of such evidence can be justified under the rule. **32. The reasons need not be recorded in a separate order provided they are embodied in the judgment of the Appellate Court. A mere reference to the peculiar circumstances of the case, or mere statement that the evidence is necessary to pronounce judgment, or that the additional evidence is required to be admitted in the interests of justice, or that there is no reason to reject the prayer for the admission of the additional evidence, is not enough compliance with the requirement as to recording of reasons.** Xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx 38. **An application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC is to be considered at the time of hearing of appeal on merits so as to find whether the documents and/or the evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues involved. The admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the Appellate Court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. The** O.P © No.1974 of 2022 10 **true test, therefore is, whether the Appellate Court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. Such occasion would arise only if on examining the evidence as it stands the court comes to the conclusion that some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent to the Court. (** Vide: Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh & Ors., AIR 1951 SC 193; and Natha Singh & Ors. v. The Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 1053 : `1976 (3) SCC 28). 39. In Parsotim Thakur & Ors. v. Lal Mohar Thakur & Ors., AIR 1931 PC 143, it was held: “The provisions of S.107 as elucidated by O.41, R.27 are clearly not intended to allow a litigant who has been unsuccessful in the lower Court to patch up the weak parts of his case and fill up omissions in the Court of appeal. Under R.27, Cl.(1) (b) it is only where the appellate Court requires it (i.e. finds it needful). **The legitimate occasion for the exercise of this discretion is not whenever before the appeal is heard a party applies to adduce fresh evidence, but when on examining the evidence as it stands, some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent, it may well be that the defect may be pointed out by a party, or that a party may move the Court to apply the defect, but the requirement must be the requirement of the court upon its appreciation of evidence as it stands.** Wherever the Court adopts this procedure it is bound by R. 27(2) to record its reasons for so doing, and under R.29 must specify the points to which the evidence is to be confined and record on its proceedings the points so specified. The power so conferred O.P © No.1974 of 2022 11 upon the Court by the Code ought to be very sparingly exercised and one requirement at least of any new evidence to be adduced should be that it should have a direct and important bearing on a main issue in the case (Emphasis added) (See also: Indirajit Pratab Sahi v. Amar Singh, AIR 1928 P.C 128) 40. In Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh & Ors. (supra), this Court held: “If the additional evidence was allowed to be adduced contrary to the principles governing the reception of such evidence, it would be a case of improper exercise of discretion, and the additional evidence so brought on the record will have to be ignored and the case decided as if it was non-existent. The order allowing the appellant to call the additional evidence is dated 17.8.1942. The appeal was heard on 24.4.1942. There was thus no examination of the evidence on the record and a decision reached that the evidence as it stood disclosed a lacuna which the court required to be filled up for pronouncing the judgment” (Emphasis added) 41. **Thus, from the above, it is crystal clear that application for taking additional evidence on record at an appellate stage, even if filed during the pendency of the appeal, is to be heard at the time of final hearing of the appeal at a stage when after appreciating the evidence on record, the court reaches the conclusion that additional evidence was required to be taken on record in order to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause. In case, application for taking additional evidence on record has been considered and allowed prior to the hearing of the appeal, the order being a product of total and complete** O.P © No.1974 of 2022 12 **non-application of mind, as to whether such evidence is required to be taken on record to pronounce the judgment or not, remains inconsequential/inexecutable and is liable to be ignored.”** 10. The above view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been reiterated by the Division Benches of this Court in **Chirag Enterprises Merchant and Commission Agents v. Star Traders, Merchants and another** [2012 (4) KHC 271] and **Trivandrum Golf Club v. State of Kerala and others** [2010 (2) KHC 651]. 11. In **Trivandrum Golf Club** (supra), the Division Bench has clearly held in paragraph 4 as follows: “………………..No party in such an appeal as of right can claim right to produce additional evidence and seek its consideration by this Court in deciding the correctness of the order impugned. The appellant Club has a case that some of the materials produced before the court below have not been taken into consideration; but, even in such a case, a proper application under Order 41 R. 27 of the CPC as mandated by the statute is essential, so that this Court may consider whether such additional evidence which is stated to have been produced before the court below but not considered is essential for a proper adjudication of the disputed point between the parties. **Needless to point out that any application under Order 41 R. 27 of the CPC has to** O.P © No.1974 of 2022 13 **be heard along with the appeal at the time of hearing and the reception of additional evidence is permissible only if this Court finds that receiving it is essential for a proper decision in the case.** The respondents have moved an application under Order 41 R. 27 of the CPC for receiving the documents produced as additional evidence. Other than stating that such documents are ‘highly necessary’ to substantiate the case of the defendants sufficient ground has not been made out to receive them in appeal. Though the respective counsel had made some submissions with reference to the additional documents tendered, after hearing the appeal, we find that the documents produced by both sides do not require to be taken into account to pronounce a judgment on the disputed questions involved or for any other substantial cause. **Additional evidence in an appeal even under Order 41 R. 27 of the CPC can be resorted to by the appellate court only after the examination of the evidence on record. That provision does not entitle the appellate court to let in evidence at the appellate stage where even without such evidence it can pronounce the judgment in a case.”** 12. The above same view has again been held by a learned Single Judge of this Court in **Mariamma v. Poulose** [2008 KHC 4613], which was relied before the court below. 13. The authoritative precedents explicitly expound the manner in which an application under Order 41, O.P © No.1974 of 2022 14 Rule 27 of the Code has to be dealt with, i.e, the application has to be considered along with the appeal while analysing the evidence already on record, and not independently. 14. Now, coming back to the facts of the case. The Appellate Court allowed Exts. P3, P3 (a), P5, P7, P9 and P11 applications by Ext.P13 common order, which reads thus: “14. The learned counsel for the counter petitioners pointed out that as per the ruling in Maiyamma v. Poulose 2007 ICO 12128 the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to hold that the necessity of adducing further evidence is to be considered along with the appeal and therefore these petitions can be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal. **It is not worthy that in that case the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to set aside the order of the trial court dismissing the petition to receive additional evidence.** **15. Hearing along with the appeal means hear the appeal also in the case to see whether these documents can be admitted. Therefore, those points are to be argued and even if it is heard along with the appeal the court has to stop hearing the matter and proceed to dispose of the petitions if the documents are found to be relevant. In other words, whether it is heard along with the appeal or otherwise the facts involved in the case needs to be considered. While hearing the petition, the facts relevant for the appeal was also argued by the petitioner and the affidavit contains such aspects. Therefore, it is practical** O.P © No.1974 of 2022 15 ## **hearing of the appeal as such and it seems it is not possible to proceed with the hearing without resolving the points the appellant wants to raise in the matter.** 16. The appellant was prevented by illness and other circumstances from producing certain documents. He wants to produce subsequent documents also along with those documents by filing subsequent petitions. That is not justified. **17. It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble High Court while considering Order 41 Rule 27 suggested a desirable course and note that a strict rule has been laid down preventing the court from considering the petitions absolutely. The matters relevant in the appeal can be considered to see the relevancy of the petitions as well.** 18. However, the petitioner was filing similar petitions one after the other in a vexatious way. Therefore, he is liable to pay costs. 19.Hence it is found that there are sufficient cause for not produced the documents at the trial court and the petition is allowed. Adduce further evidence to prove the documents produced and mark the same. The point is found accordingly.” 15. The District Judge is reminded that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court is authoritatively binding on him and he is bound to follow the law so declared, whether it is to his liking or not. The interpretation given by the District Judge that the law laid down in **Mariamma (** supra) was only because the order passed by the Trial Court in that particular O.P © No.1974 of 2022 16 case, was not worthy enough etc., is unwarranted and strongly deprecated. With much reluctance, I refrain from passing further strictures on the perception that the observation was not wilfull. 16. The findings of the Appellate Court extracted above, undoubtedly show that they are diametrically opposite to the ratio decidendi of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in the above referred decisions. 17. The Appellate Court ought to have considered the applications only along with the appeal and not independently, as presently done. This Court has no hesitation to hold that Appellate Court has overstepped its authority and powers, which warrants interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, I allow the original petition in the following manner: (i) Ext.P13 common order is set aside. (ii) The Appellate Court is directed to consider and O.P © No.1974 of 2022 17 dispose of Exts. P3, P3(a), P5, P7, P9 and P11 applications, after adverting to Exts.P4, P6, P8 and P10 counter affidavits/written objections and by following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in the above referred decisions. (iii) The court below is directed to consider and dispose of the Exts. P3, P3(a), P5, P7, P9 and P11 applications along with the appeal, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate on or before 31.3.2023. **Sd/-** **C.S.DIAS** ma/2.11.2022 **JUDGE** O.P © No.1974 of 2022 18 ## **`APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1974/2022`** - `PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 12-03-2021 OF THE HON'BLE SUBORDINATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA DISMISSING O.S. NO. 34/2016 AND O.S. NO. 93/2013.` - `Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE A.S NO. 15 OF 2021 DATED 31-03-2021 FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 BEFORE THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.` - `Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY THE I.A NO.4 OF 2021 IN A.S NO. 15/2021 DATED 05-08-2021 OF THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.` - `Exhibit P3(a) TYPED COPY THE I.A NO.4 OF 2021 IN A.S NO. 15/2021 DATED 05-08-2021 OF THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.` - `Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION/COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 31-05-2022 FILED TO THE I.A NO.4 OF 2021 IN A.S NO. 15/2021 OF THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.` - `Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A NO. 8 OF 2022 IN A.S NO. 15/2021 DATED 10-03-2022 OF THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.` - `Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION/COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 31-05-2022 FILED TO THE I.A NO.8 OF 2022 IN A.S NO. 15/2021 OF THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.` - `Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A NO. 9 OF 2022 IN A.S NO. 15/2021 OF THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 04-04-2022.` - `Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION/COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 31-05-2022 FILED TO THE I.A NO.9 OF 2022 IN A.S NO. 15/2021 OF THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.` - `Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A NO. 11/2022 OF IN A.S NO. 15/2021 OF THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 1805-2022.` - `Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION/COUNTER` O.P © No.1974 of 2022 19 - `AFFIDAVIT DATED 31-05-2022 FILED TO THE I.A NO.11 OF 2022 IN A.S NO. 15/2021 OF THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.` - `Exhibit P11` - `TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. 12/2022 DATED 1706-2022 IN A.S. 15/2021 OF THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.` - `Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE PROOF AFFIDAVIT DATED 17-06-2022 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN A.S NO. 15/2021 OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA` - `Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 1207-2022 IN I.A. NO. 4/2021, I.A. NO. 8/2022, I.A. NO. 9/2022, I.A. NO. 11/2022 AND I.A. NO. 12/2022 IN A.S. NO. 15/2021 OF THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.` - `Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE CAVEAT DATED 15-07-2022 FILED BY 1ST RESPONDENT IN THIS HON'BLE COURT.` - `Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION (C) 1490/2022 DATED 09-08-2022 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.`