Pattiam Rajan v. Dr. P. P. Bhaskaran and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/1ST KARTHIKA, 1939** **OP(C).No. 2973 of 2017 (O) ---------------------------** **OS 6/2015 OF SUB COURT, KANNUR.** **.......** **PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT NO.4: -------------------------------------** **PATTIAM RAJAN, S/O.KUNHAMBU, AGED 68 YEARS, PATTIAM AMSOM, KOTTIODI DESOM, CHERUVACHERI(PO), THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DIST-670691.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.BABU** |**RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT 1,2,3,5,6 AND 7:**|**RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT 1,2,3,5,6 AND 7:**|| |---|---|---| |**------------------------------------------------------------**||| |**1.**|**DR.P.P.BHASKARAN, S/O.KELAN,**|| ||**AGED 51 YEARS, FORMER PRINCIPAL,**|| ||**PARASSINIKADAVU AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE,**|| ||**PARASSINIKADAVU,(PO),KANNUR DIST - 670 563.**|| |**2.**|**PAPPINISSERI PANCHAYATH VISHA CHIKILA SOCIETY,**|| ||**NO.47/1973, P.O PAPPINISSERI,**|| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS FORMER PRESIDENT,**|| ||**M.V.GIRISH KUMAR,**|| ||**PARASSINIKADAVU AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE,**|| ||**PARASSINIKADAVU.(P.O), KANNUR DISTRICT-670563.**|| |**3.**|**K.K.NANU, S/O.KUNHAMBU, AGED 75 YEARS,**|| ||**FORMER SECRETARY, PAPPINISSERI PANCHAYATH**|| ||**VISHA CHIKILA SOCIETY, NO.47/1973,**|| ||**P.O.PAPPINISSERI,**|| ||**PARASSINIKADAVU AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE,**|| ||**PARASSINIKADAVU.(P.O), KANNUR DISTRICT-670563.**|| |**4.**|**E.KUNHIRAMAN, S/O.KUNHARAN NAMBIAR,**|| ||**AGED 63 YEARS, RETIRED PROFESSOR,**|| ||**RESIDING AT EDAKKEPRATH HOUSE,**|| ||**KOOVOD DESOM(PO), KUTTIKOL,**|| ||**TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR(DIST),PIN-670 141.**|| |||**--2--**| **--2--** ## **OP(C).No. 2973 of 2017 (O) --------------------------** **5. M.V.KANNAN, S/O.KUNHANKUTTY NAMBIAR, AGED 63 YEARS, NEAR EMS SMARAKA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, (PO) PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 561.** **6. M.V.RAJESH, S/O.M.V.RAGHAVAN, AGED 43 YEARS, BURNASSERI, CANTONMENT, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 014.** **7. P.R.RAJAN KUTTY, AGED 58 YEARS, ADVOCATE, COURT ROAD, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT-670141.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM** **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** **OP(C).No. 2973 of 2017 (O) ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.6/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, KANNUR. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(C)NO.717/2016 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.610/2017 IN OS.6/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, KANNUR. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **mbr/** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.** ## **--------------------------------------O.P.(C).No.2973 of 2017 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 23[rd] day of October, 2017** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner, who is the 4[th] defendant in O.S.No.6 of 2015 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kannur and the 1[st] petitioner in I.A.No.610 of 2017, is before this Court in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order to set aside Ext.P3 order dated 26.09.2017 of the said court in that interlocutory application. 2. On 12.10.2017, when this original petition came up for admission, this Court issued urgent notice on admission by special messenger to the respondents. 3. On 20.10.2017, this Court directed the Registry to get a report from the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kannur as to the present status of O.S.No.6 of 2015. Pursuant to the said order, a report dated 21.10.2017 has been received, wherein it has been stated that evidence in the said suit has already been recorded and the arguments of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 have also been completed. As per the said report, the case now stands posted to 24.10.2017 for arguments of other defendants and that, there is already a direction by this Court in the judgment dated 10.03.2016 in O.P.(C).No.717 of 2016, for time bound disposal of O.S.No.6 of 2015. 2 O.P.(C).No.2973 of 2017 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/4[th] defendant, the learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent/plaintiff and also the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent/2[nd] defendant. 5. The sole issue that arises for consideration in this Original Petition is as to the legality or otherwise of Ext.P3 order passed by the court below in I.A.No.610 of 2017 in O.S.No.6 of 2015. 6. I.A.No.610 of 2017 is one filed by the petitioner and the 6[th] respondent herein, under Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to receive the witness list filed along with a petition to condone the delay and to issue summons to the witness to appear before the court along with the statement of Accounts in respect of A/c.No.42342200040911, for the period from June 2014 to December 2014, for giving oral evidence. The said interlocutory application is one filed in July 2017 and the same is now stands dismissed by Ext.P3 order dated 26.09.2017. 7. The suit is one filed by the 1[st] respondent/plaintiff by describing himself as the former Principal of Parassinikkadavu Ayurveda Medical College and by challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The suit is for declaration, recovery of arrears of salary, recovery of damages and for injunction. Going by the averments in the affidavit accompanying to I.A.No.610 of 2017, the bank records sought to be produced will show that the plaintiff received subsistence allowance. In Ext.P3 O.P.(C).No.2973 of 2017 3 order, after considering the rival contentions, the court below found that the document sought to be produced is not relevant for deciding the dispute in the suit. Even if those documents are relevant, the petitioners can obtain and produce certified copies of the same and as such, there is no ground to issue summons to the Bank Manager to produce those documents. Accordingly, the court below dismissed the said interlocutory application by Ext.P3 order. 8. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent/plaintiff that if the suit is ultimately decreed and the plaintiff is found entitled for payment of salary and other benefits for the relevant period, the subsistence allowance paid for the period from May 2014 to December 2014 can certainly be deducted. The said submission of the learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent/plaintiff is recorded. 9. A reading of Ext.P3 order would show that, after considering the rival contentions with reference to the pleadings and materials on record, the court below found that the relief sought for in I.A.No.610 of 2017 is not required for a proper disposal of the suit. Accordingly, the court below dismissed I.A.No.610 of 2017 by Ext.P3 order. ## 10. In _**Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil**_ _**[(2010) 8 SCC 329]**_ the Apex Court, while analysing the scope and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the 4 O.P.(C).No.2973 of 2017 Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court. ## 11. In _**Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G.Nair (2016(1) KHC**_ _**1)**_ a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principle of law. 12. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the reasoning of the court below in Ext.P3 order 5 O.P.(C).No.2973 of 2017 cannot be said to be perverse or patently illegal warranting an interference by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, this Original Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- **ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE** AV