JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by Ext.P8 order passed in I.A No.6/2022 in A.S No.54/2019 by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Karunagappally (Lower Appellate Court), the third respondent in the appeal has filed the original petition. The respondents are the second appellant and the second respondent in appeal.

2. The relevant background facts leading to Ext.P8 order are:

(i). The petitioner was the third defendant in O.S No.267/2015 of the Court of Munsiff, Karunagappally, (Trial Court) which was filed by late Krishnamma, the mother of the first respondent for a decree of partition.

(ii) The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court.

(iii) Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, late Krishnamma filed A.S No.54/2019 before the Lower Appellate Court.

(iv). Pending the appeal, Krishnamma died and the first respondent has been impleaded as the second appellant in the appeal.

(v). During the pendency of the appeal, the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), National Highway & Competent Authority,(Acquisition Authority) passed Award No.OCHR 0529 after acquiring a portion of the property belonging to the petitioner covered by will deeds dated 2.11. 2011 and 30.8.2017.

(vi). The will deeds were executed by Shyama Sundaran – the original first respondent in the appeal, who also died pending the appeal.

(vii).The petitioner had produced the above-

mentioned original will deeds before the Trial Court and the same were marked as Exts.B2 and B3 in evidence.

(viii).As the Acquisition Authority has directed the petitioner to prove his title over the acquired property for payment of compensation, he filed I.A 1/2021 for return of the will deeds to be produced before the Acquisition Authority.

(ix). But, the Lower Appellate Court rejected the Ext.P4 application by Ext.P5 order.

(x) Challenging Ext.P5 order, the petitioner filed O.P (C) No.749/2022 before this Court. By Ext.P6 judgment, this Court set aside the Ext.P5 order and permitted the petitioner to file a fresh application in the appeal after impleading the legal representatives of the deceased appellant.

(xi) Consequently, the petitioner filed I.A No.6/2022 (Ext.P7) as directed by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment. Yet, the court below, by the impugned Ext.P8 order, dismissed Ext.P7 application.

(xii).Ext.P8 is manifestly wrong and unsustainable in law. Hence the original petition.

3. Heard; Sri.Sasith M.R., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Even though notice has been served on the respondents, there is no appearance for them.

4. The short point is, whether there is any error in Ext.P8 order.

5. On an appreciation of the pleadings and materials on record, it is evident from Ext.P1 judgment that the will deeds were produced by the petitioner and they were marked in evidence as Exts.B2 and B3.

6. The petitioner’s case is that, he wants to substantiate his tittle before the Acquisition Authority to claim compensation in the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, he wants the return of Exts.B2 and B3 will deeds.

7. The court below, by the impugned Ext.P8 order, has rejected the application mainly on the findings that the appeal is pending consideration and the petitioner has already transferred his rights over the property to one Vinod Kumar.

8. Order 13 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, (in short ‘Code’) deals with return of admitted documents. It is profitable to extract the said provision, which reads as follows:

“9. Return of admitted documents.-

(1) Any person, whether a party to the Suit or not, desirous of receiving back any document produced by him in the suit and placed on the record shall, unless the document is impounded under rule 8, be entitled to receive back the same,—

(a) where the suit is one in which an appeal is not allowed, when the suit has been disposed of, and (b) where the suit is one in which an appeal is allowed, when the court is satisfied that the time for preferring an appeal has elapsed and that no appeal has been preferred or, if an appeal has been preferred, when the ap