IMPORTANT POINT
The trial court's refusal to allow witness examination and document production in money lending disputes was perverse, necessitating intervention under Article 227 to prevent manifest injustice.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Original Petition is preferred by the Plaintiffs in three commercial suits on the files of Commercial Court, Kottayam. The plaints are for the realisation of money amounting to Rs.26 lakhs, stated to have been borrowed on three different occasions, i.e., 21.04.2015, 24.04.2015 and 02.05.2015. The amounts borrowed on the respective dates were Rs.6 lakhs, Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.10 lakhs. The demand is raised on the basis of a promissory note issued by the defendants. On failure, Suits were filed as CS No.432/2021 for an amount of Rs.18,71,000/-, CS No.309/2021 for an amount of Rs.37,40,300/- and CS No.22/2020 for an amount of Rs.11,21,800/-. Exts.P1 to P3 are the plaints filed before the Commercial Court, Kottayam.

2. The defendants filed written statement denying the transactions. It is denied that the defendants had approached the plaintiff for availing loan of Rs.36 lakhs in total. It is their case that on account of dire necessity, taking advantage of the precarious and vulnerable position of the defendants, the plaintiff compelled them to put their signatures in various printed forms and plain papers more than 10 in numbers. One Ipekutty Thomas, who is the person in charge of the financial institution, was instructed to get the blank papers signed and the signatures of the 2^nd defendant on the documents produced are false, fabricated and forged. The plaintiff is conducting an illegal establishment doing money lending business without following the statutory requirements.

3. The orders impugned in this Original Petition are Exts.P8, P11 and P14. Ext.P8 is the order of the trial court whereby it refused to examine witnesses Nos.1 and 4 in the witness schedule produced in IA No.14/2024. Ext.P11 is an order of the trial court refusing to summon documents from the office of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner that are related to statutory licenses, forms, returns etc. Ext.P14 is the order declining the direction to produce the statutory documents that are sought to be produced by the plaintiff.

4. According to the petitioners herein, the examination of PW1 is over and the cases were jointly tried. On 27.07.2024, prior to the defendants’ evidence, Ext.P7 witness list was submitted requiring the presence of four witnesses. The 1^st defendant was examined as DW1 on 31.07.2024. It is stated that much prior to that, the defence list was submitted. The first witness is the registering authority under the Money Lenders Act, i.e. the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner AIT & ST Department, Kottayam. The 2^nd and 3^rd witnesses are the Manager and Secretary of the bank and Co-operative Society respectively. The fourth witness is none other than the wife of the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff, who is also directly involved in the affairs of the plaintiff firm. The witness list was filed along with IA No.14/2024. I.A. No.15/2024 was preferred, i.e. Ext.P9 along with IA No.14/2024 for a direction to the first witness, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, to produce statutory documents listed as serial Nos.1 to 6 in Ext.P9. The other witnesses were also directed to produce specific documents which are necessary to prove certain transactions. The petitioners herein stated that they have assigned specific reason for summoning document Nos.1 to 6 by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and have also preferred I.A. No.16 of 2024 under Order XI Rule 14 CPC to produce three documents numbered a, b and c, as evident from Ext.P12 which are the statutory documents to be compulsorily maintained by an establishment conducting money lending business under the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 (for short ‘the Act’).

5. However, I.A. No.14/2024 has been partly allowed, whereby PW2 and PW3 were recalled, and the prayer to summon witness Nos.1 and 4 was rejected. But no specific reason was assigned for such rejection. Whereas I.A. Nos.15/24 and 16/24 were rejected on a common ground, as seen in Exts.P11 and P14, that the documents sought to