The Writ Petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs:

1. That all records relating to Exhibit P5 be called to this Hon'ble Court and an order be passed setting aside Exhibit P5 order.

2. That the lower court be directed to mark the documents detailed in Exhibit P3 and proceed with the trial of the case.

3. That all further proceedings in O.S.No.370 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram be stayed pending disposal of this Writ Petition.

2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.370 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Suit was one for damages, and the respondents are the defendants. The trial of the case is now in progress. Petitioner/plaintiff as part of his evidence sought for exhibiting some documents which were referred to and marked in his affidavit filed before the court in lieu of his examination in chief. Marking and exhibiting of some of the documents referred to in the affidavit in evidence was objected to by the respondents/defendants. The learned Sub Judge, after hearing both sides, declined the marking of some of the documents produced by the plaintiff, and referred to in his affidavit, vide P5 order. Propriety and correctness of P5 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. I heard the counsel on both sides. Suit for damages against the Government, both State and Central and a number of police officials, was laid by the petitioner/plaintiff alleging that falsely implicating him in a crime case, more particularly, an espionage case, popularly known as 'ISRO spy case', he was subjected to torture and police excess and that his reputation was damnified. Suit claim was resisted by the respondents filing written statements, in which maintainability of entertaining the claim for damages had also been challenged. For disposal of this writ petition, the limited question emerging for consideration being the correctness of P5 order passed by the learned Sub Judge declining the request of the petitioner/plaintiff to mark some documents produced by him in evidence, and that alone, advertance to the pleadings of the parties with respect to the case canvassed for the suit claim or defence raised to resist such claim is not called for. P5 order would disclose that among the documents produced by the petitioner/plaintiff, learned Sub Judge found five of them, which have been referred to as A1, A4, A6, A7 and A9, cannot be marked and admitted in evidence at this stage of the suit. A1 is a statement prepared by a doctor as to the physical condition of the petitioner/plaintiff while he was in custody of the police, but, prepared at a later point of time; A4 is a note file containing inter departmental communications relating to an enquiry as against acts/omissions of the defendants (police officials) in connection with the case proceeded against the plaintiff; A6 and A7 are news papers containing reports damnifying the petitioner/plaintiff which are alleged to have been planted by the police officers investgating the case, and, A9, a copy of an open letter purported to have been issued by a number of eminent persons including scientists taking exception to the maltreatment and excesses allegedly, meted out to the plaintiff. The learned Sub Judge, after examining the relevancy of the materials referred to above with respect to its marking and admissibility in evidence, forming a conclusion that these documents cannot be marked through the plaintiff, but, only through witnesses, after their examination, who have direct knowledge over such documents.

4. P5 order of the learned Sub Judge declining the marking of the documents is assailed by Adv.Sri.G.S.Raghunath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contending that declining the marking of such materials at the stage when the plaintiff is being examined would deprive him an opportunity to lead evidence on the v