Quite A Slippery Slope: Kerala HC On Comparison Based On Photocopy When The Original Document Is Not Available
The Kerala High Court set aside the Order lifting the conditional attachment of a property.
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that when an original document is not available for scrutiny, a comparison based on photocopy is “quite a slippery slope and ought to be treated with great care and circumspection.”
The genuineness and veracity of the agreement between the parties was the moot question. The Court set aside the Order of the Additional Sub Court, which had lifted the conditional attachment of a property in a dispute between the Appellant and M/s MSS Hospital and Nursing College Pvt. Ltd. and its Managing Director (Respondents).
A Single Bench of Justice Syam Kumar VM remarked, “Further, as rightly contended by the counsel for the plaintiff, in view of the advanced technology available, when the original document is not available for scrutiny, a comparison based on photocopy is quite a slippery slope and ought to be treated with great care and circumspection.”
Advocate C Rajendran represented the Appellant, while Central Government Counsel Dayasindhu Shreehari appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Appellant had sought the recovery along with interest from the Respondents. The Respondents had engaged the Appellant as their lawyer in a matter involving loans availed from a Bank.
At some point in time, when confronted with a Court Order that required immediate payment towards the loan account, the 2nd Respondent requested the Appellant to lend him Rs.45 lakhs.
However, after the said amount was transferred, the hospital was sold to M/s Sunrise Institute of Medical Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
After the Appellant remained unpaid, he filed a suit seeking to recover the amount due.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court noted that the “genuineness and veracity” of an agreement can only be decided by a detailed appreciation of evidence.
“Before arriving at a conclusion regarding the similarity of signatures, though prima facie, substantial caution and care ought to have been adopted by the Sub Court. It is even more so in cases where the parties are already known to each other and have had transactions between them prior to the execution of the document,” the Bench remarked.
The Court stated that “the mere presentation of the copy of the plaint containing an assertion by M/s.Sunrise Institute that all obligations…have been met does not by itself discharge the obligation of the 2nd defendant to explain the receipt of Rs.45 lakhs into his account. As already pointed out above, the agreement dated 23.04.2023 cannot be accepted in toto at the very threshold and requires substantiation at trial.”
“The contention of the plaintiff that he may not be able to enjoy the fruits of the decree, if any, that would be passed in the suit, if the 2nd defendant alienates the plaint schedule property in the meanwhile, has a sound basis. The plaintiff would in such a circumstance be put to irreparable loss and injury. Hence it serves the interests of justice better if the conditional attachment granted earlier remains through the trial,” the Court observed.
Consequently, the Court held, “The conditional order of attachment of the plaint schedule property as stipulated under Order 38 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. granted earlier shall be retained during the pendency of O.S.No.113 of 2024. The 2nd defendant shall be free to furnish security before the Sub Court and seek the said court to lift the conditional attachment.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: MG Sreejith v. M/S MSS Hospital And Nursing College Pvt. Ltd & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:5968)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Arun V.G., V.Jaya Ragi, R.Harikrishnan, Neeraj Narayan and A.S.Salma
Respondents: Advocate N.G.and Sunil P.Jaya