IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 31st day of December, 2013.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.89/2013 (Filed on 29.06.2013)
Between:
Thomas Koshy,
Kochuveettil,
Chittoor Muri,
Pathanamthitta. ….. Complainant
(By Adv. P. Hariharan Nair)
And:
P.K. Mathew,
Advocate,
Pathanamthitta. ….. Opposite party
O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Complainant’s case is that he was the plaintiff in O.S.No.12/98 of Sub Court, Pathanamthitta filed against one Mathai Thomas for recovering an amount of Rs.1 lakh from the said Mathai Thomas. In the above money suit the opposite party was the counsel for the plaintiff/complainant herein. The said case was decreed in favour of the complainant herein. Even after 3 years from the date of decree the complainant did not received the decree amount. So he filed an E.P.No.169/07 through Adv. George. M. Jacob for getting the decree amount. In that E.P, the Judgment Debtor filed his objection stating that he had paid the entire decree amount and its interest to the opposite party in E.P.No.132/04 filed against him by the opposite party. Filing of E.P.132/04 is without the knowledge of the complainant and the receipt of the decree amount was also not communicated. Subsequent to the filing of E.P.169/07 by the complainant, opposite party sent a notice dated 21.02.2008 stating that the decree amount in O.S.12/98 is with him. In the said notice opposite party directed the complainant to come with one skariah of Thressywood for settling the account and for collecting the decree amount. At the same time, the opposite party sent another notice to the complainant on 23.02.2008 calling the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs due from the complainant to M/s. Parekattu Financiers as per a pronote. Both the notices were received by the complainant on 26.02.2008. Consequent to the non-payment of the decree amount complainant sent a registered notice on 17.09.2008 to the opposite party demanding the decreed amount. Even after the said notice, opposite party failed to pay the amount. Therefore the complainant filed a complaint before the Bar Council of Kerala against the complainant alleging professional misconduct on 13.11.2008. In the mean time Parekattu Financiers filed a suit as O.S.No.295/08 before the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta against the complainant on the basis of the opposite parties notice dated 23.02.2008 demanding Rs.2 lakhs from the complainant. In O.S.No.295/08 the opposite party was impleaded as the garnishee of the decree amount in O.S.No.12/98 and as per the order in I.A.No.1238/08 in O.S.295/08 the decree amount in the hands of the opposite party was attached by the Sub Court. Subsequently, the opposite party filed his objection before the Bar Council stating that he is ready to pay the decree amount or to deposit the same in the court subject to the final decision in O.S.No.295/08 and the complainant and the opposite parties are bound to wait for the final order of the court. In his objection before the Bar Council of Kerala opposite party had admitted that he had received a total amount of Rs.1,70,000/- on behalf of the complainant from the defendant in O.S.No.12/08. In O.S.295/08 the complainant herein was the 2nd defendant and his objection is that the alleged pronote is a fabricated document and the said document was created for avoiding the payment of the decree amount to the complainant. In the said case, the complainant’s objection was accepted and the said case was dismissed on 22.10.2012 in favour of the 2nd defendant/complainant herein. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite party several time including 31.12.2012 for getting the decree amount. But opposite party evaded the payment by saying that there is chance for an appeal against the judgment in O.S.No.295/08. But on enquiry it is revealed that so far no appeal has been filed against the order in O.S.No.295/08. Therefore, the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite party on 21.01.2013 demanding to pay Rs.1,75,000/- with 9% from the date on which he received the said amount. Thus an amount of Rs. 2,61,800/- was due from the opposite party. Even then opposite party has not returned the decree amount to the complainant. The retention of the decree amount entitled to the complainant by the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint for realization of Rs.2,76,000/- the decree amount and its interest along with 9% interest from 16.01.2013 and for the realization of Rs.1 lakh as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
3. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version and contended inter alia as follows: According to the opposite party, this complaint is not maintainable and is baseless, misconceived and it is an abuse of process. The complainant is not consumer and the allegations are not a consumer dispute and hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The allegations of the complainant are mainly penal offences and the alleged cause of action is hopelessly barred by limitation. Further, the matter in issue was already settled by the Bar Council of Kerala vide the order in C.P.No.128/08. Therefore this proceedings is hit by the doctrine of res-judicata. Apart from the above objections, the following objections were also raised in the version based on the facts. In the year 1998 one Mr.Skariah @ kariachan approached the opposite party for filing a civil suit for damages and recovery of advance money paid under a sale agreement. However, the said sale agreement was in the name of the complainant herein, who was an employee of the said Skariah. Therefore the said suit was filed in the name of the complainant as O.S.12/98 before the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta as per the instructions of said Skariah. The said suit was decreed on 31.01.2004 in favour of the plaintiff therein/complainant herein. Thereafter, an execution petition vide E.P.No.132/04 was filed for the execution of the decree. In the said E.P, the decree amount with interest was received by equal instalments and the said receipts were informed to the complainant as well as the said Skariah. After receiving the full decree amount, opposite party sent a registered letter dated 21.02.2008 to them asking to collect the decree amount after settling the advocate fee and other suit expenses. But nobody responded to the said registered letter or they have not turned up for collecting the decree amount. While so, opposite party received a registered letter dated 17.09.2008 from the complainant demanding the decree amount with 9% interest. In the said registered notice, it is alleged that the complainant had never authorized the opposite party for filing any E.P. on his behalf in O.S.No.12/98. While so on 05.11.2008 opposite party received a notice from the Bar Council of Kerala, in C.P.No.128/08 filed by the complainant herein against the opposite party alleging professional misconduct, deficiency in service, fraud, misappropriation and fabrication of documents etc. In the above said proceedings of the Bar Council of Kerala opposite party filed his reply along with relevant documents. After considering the matter, Bar Council of Kerala dropped further proceedings on a finding that the opposite party has not committed any misconduct etc. Subsequently a registered notice dated 23.01.2013 and a correction notice dated 25.01.2013 were received by the opposite party from Mr. Hariharan Nair, Advocate, Pathanamthitta raising the same allegations raised in the proceedings of the Bar Council and thereafter this complaint is filed against the opposite party alleging the same allegations raised in the registered notice and the petition filed before the Bar Council. The allegation that E.P.No.132/04 was filed without the knowledge and consent of the complainant herein is false. This opposite party is not aware of the filing of E.P.No.169/07 and if such an E.P is filed the complainant has not obtained no objection or any Vakkalath relinquishment from the opposite party. The two registered notices dated 21.02.2008 and 23.02.2008 issued by the opposite party is admitted. The registered notice dated 21.02.2008 was addressed to the complainant and the above said Skariah for collecting the decree amount after settling the account in connection with the suit expenses. The registered notice dated 23.02.2008 was addressed to one Jossy Scariah and the complainant and it was sent on behalf of M/s. Parekattu Chits and Financiers and it is the part of the opposite party’s profession. The complainant did not turned up for collecting the decree amount despite the notice dated 21.02.2008. However, he replied the 2nd notice dated 23.02.2008 through his counsel. The registered notice dated 17.09.2008 issued by the complainant and the filing of the petition before the Bar Council are admitted. But the Bar Council dismissed the complaint, on the finding that the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service or professional misconduct and the said order of the Bar Council become final as the complainant has not challenged the said order. Opposite party also admitted the receipt of notice from Sub Court, Pathanamthitta in I.A.No.1238/08 in O.S.No.295/08. Opposite party filed his reply before Sub Court, Pathanamthitta. Opposite party is not aware of the further proceedings in the above suit and the I.A. The allegation that the complainant had approached the opposite party several times for getting the decree amount and the last such approach was on 31.12.2012 is false. The complainant has never had any talk with the opposite party for the last so many years. The complainant has no legally enforceable claim or any cause of action against the opposite party and he is not entitled any reliefs sought for in the complaint. With the above contentions, opposite party prays for the dismissal of his complaint with cost as he had not committed any illegal acts as alleged by the complainant.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral depositions of PWs.1 and 2 and Exts.A1 to A11 and B1 to B4. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
6. The Point:- The complainant’s allegation is that he had entrusted a money suit to the opposite party for the recovery of Rs. 1 lakh from one Mathai Thomas and the said suit, O.S.12/98 of Sub Court, Pathanamthitta, was decreed in favour of the complainant on 31.03.2004. But the complainant did not received the decree amount. So he filed an execution petition as E.P.No.169/07 on 31.11.2007 through Adv. George. M. Jacob for executing the decree in O.S.12/98. In the E.P the Judgment Debtor filed his objection on 15.09.2008 stating that he had already paid the decree amount and its interest to the opposite party in E.P.No.132/04 filed by the opposite party against him for executing the decree in O.S.12/98 of Sub Court, Pathanamthitta. Subsequent to the filing of E.P.No.169/07 the complainant received registered notice dated 21.02.2008 from the opposite party. In the said notice, it is stated that the decree amount in O.S.No.12/98 is with the opposite party and the complainant can collect the said amount provided that the complainant has to bring Mr. Kariachan of Thressywood for settling the accounts including advocate fees etc. Along with the above letter, the complainant also received a suit notice from the opposite party calling the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.2 lakhs to M/s. Parekattu Chits and Financiers, Pathanamthitta in connection with a pronote. Filing of E.P.132/04 is without the knowledge of the complainant and the opposite party has not intimated about the receipt of the decree amount. On the basis of the information from the opposite party and from the objection in E.P.169/07, the complainant sent a notice to the opposite party on 17.09.2008 demanding the return of the decree amount with 9% interest. It is further stated in the said notice that if the opposite party fails to pay the decree amount complainant will filed petition before the Bar Council in this regard. Subsequent to the said notice, the complainant file a petition against the opposite party before the Bar Council alleging professional misconduct etc. in connection with the above matter. At the same time, a money suit as O.S.No.295/08 has filed before Sub Court, Pathanamthitta by M/s. Parekattu Financiers against the complainant herein and another one for recovering an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs from the defendants. In the above case, an I.A.No.1238/08 has also filed by the plaintiff and the opposite party herein is impleaded as a respondent being the garnishee in respect of the decree amount with him entitled to the complainant herein and the said amount was attached by the Sub Court. Thereafter the opposite party filed his counter before the Bar Council of Kerala and in that counter the opposite party stated that an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- is with him and he is ready and willing to pay the amount and due to the attachment order he is not in a position to pay the amount and hence the complainant has to wait till the final judgment in O.S.No.295/08. Later, O.S.No.295/08 was dismissed on 22.10.2011. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite party for getting the decree amount. But the opposite party did not given the decree amount by saying that there is chance for an appeal against the order in O.S.No.295/08 and the complainant has to wait for ascertaining whether an appeal is filed or not. But so far no appeal is filed. So the complainant issued a legal notice on 23.01.2013 demanding the payment of decree amount and its interest. Even after the receipt of the said notice, opposite party has not paid the decree amount. According to the complainant, the non-payment of the decree amount and the filing of the E.P.No.132/04 without the knowledge of the complainant are deficiency in service and professional misconduct. Because of the above said acts of the opposite party complainant had sustained a mental agony and financial loss and hence opposite party is liable to the complainant and prays for allowing this complaint.
7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with certain documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A11. Ext.A1 is the certified copy of decree in O.S.No.12/98 of Sub Court, Pathanamthitta. Ext.A2 is the certified copy of the judgment in O.S.No.12/98. Ext.A3 is the certified copy of the objection filed by the judgment debtor in E.P.No.196/07 of Sub Court, Pathanamthitta. Ext.A4 is the certified copy of the letter dated 17.09.2008 issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Ext.A5 is the certified copy of the petition submitted by the complainant against the opposite party before the Bar Council of Kerala. Ext.A6 is the copy of the counter/objection of the opposite party against the petition of the complainant filed before the Bar Council. Ext.A7 is the certified copy of the decree in O.S.No.295/08 of Sub Court, Pathanamthitta. Ext.A8 is the certified copy of the judgment in O.S.No.295/08. Ext.A9 is the copy of the legal notice dated 23.01.2013 issued to the opposite party for the complainant. Ext.A9(a) is the postal receipt and Ext.A9(b) is the postal acknowledgment card of Ext.A9. Ext.A10 is the copy of a correction notice dated 21.05.2013 issued to the opposite party for the complainant. Ext.A10(a) and A10(b) are the postal receipt and postal acknowledgment card of Ext.A10. Ext.A11 is the certified copy of the original petition in E.P.No.169/07 of Sub Court, Pathanamthitta. Apart from the above, one witness was also examined for the complainant as PW2.
8. The contention of the opposite party is that he filed a money suit in the name of the complainant herein against one Mathai Thomas as O.S.No.12/98 before the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta. The said case was entrusted by one Mr. Skariah @ Kariachan and the complainant herein was an employee of the said Skariah at that time. The said case was filed for recovering Rs.1 lakh due from the defendant therein in connection with an agreement for purchasing certain landed properties by the said Kariachan owned by the defendant. But the said agreement was executed in the name of the complainant and he is an employee of the said Skariah at that time. In fact, the complainant herein is only a Binami of the said Skariah in respect of the sale agreement and the money suit. The said suit was decreed in favour of the complainant and an E.P.No.132/04 was also filed by the opposite party. In the said E.P, the entire decree amount was received by the instalments. The decree, the E.P, receipt of the decree amount were duly informed to the said Skariah and the complainant herein. Opposite party had done everything in respect of the said civil case as per the instruction of the said Skariah as he is the actual creditor of the defendant and as the complainant herein is only a Binami. In the circumstances, opposite party was not in a position to give the decree amount arbitrarily either to the complainant or to the said Skariah. So he directed them several time to come and collect the decree amount jointly from the opposite party. But they have not turned up. So the opposite party sent a registered notice on 21.02.2008 to the complainant directing the complainant to come along with said Skariah and to collect the decree amount after settling the accounts. Even then the complainant has not turned up. Thereafter, after a lapse of 7 months, the complainant sent a registered notice to the opposite party demanding the decree amount and later the complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party before the Bar Council on 13.11.2008 alleging professional misconduct etc. In the meantime, a civil case was filed before the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta as O.S.No.295/08 against the complainant and another one for recovering Rs.2 lakhs from them. In that case the plaintiff therein filed an I.A.1238/08 in which the opposite party is a respondent as the garnishee of the decree amount in O.S.No.12/98 and as per the order in the said I.A, the decree amount in the hands of the opposite party was attached by the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta. Later, the petition against the opposite party filed by the complainant before the Bar Council was dismissed on 30.10.2011 on the finding that opposite party has not committed any professional or other misconduct. At the same time, O.S.No.295/08 filed before Sub Court, Pathanamthitta was also dismissed on 22.10.2011. Thereafter also the complainant or the said Skariah has not turned up for collecting the decree amount. Instead the complainant sent a registered notice on 23.01.2011 to the opposite party demanding the decree amount and later he filed this complaint against the opposite party. Opposite party was always ready and willing to pay the decree amount. But he was prevented from the payment due to the non-compliance of the direction of the opposite party to the complainant and his employer Skariah and due to the court attachment. This being the fact, all other allegations of the complainant are baseless. Everything happened due to difference of opinion occurred between the complainant and his employer Skariah and due to the termination of the complainant from his employment. The complainant is a close neighbour of the opposite party and the said Skariah is also very close and familiar to the opposite party. The long silence of the complainant in proceeding against the opposite party and the filing of an E.P. through another advocate without obtaining the Vakalath relinquishment from the opposite party etc. clearly shows the malafides of the complainant. Complainant filed this complaint suppressing the real facts only for the purpose of harassing the opposite party.
9. In order to prove the case of the opposite party, opposite party cross-examined PWs.1 and 2 and 4 documents were marked for him through PW1 as Exts.B1 to B4. Ext.B1 is the copy of the registered letter dated 21.02.2008 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Ext.B2 is the copy of registered notice dated 23.02.2008 issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant and one Jossy Zachariah for and on behalf of Parekattu Chits and Financiers. Ext.B3 is the reply notice dated 28.02.2008 issued by Adv. George.M.Jacob to the opposite party in reply to Ext.B2 notice. Ext.B4 is the certified copy of the order dated 30.10.2011 in C.P.No.128/08 of Bar Council of Kerala.
10. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and it is seen that the parties have no dispute with regard to the filing of the civil suit and its decree and the receipt of the decree amount by the opposite party. The dispute between the parties is that the opposite party filed an execution petition without the knowledge of the complainant and the decree amount received by the opposite party on the basis of the said E.P is not given to the complainant so far. According to the complainant, the above said acts of the opposite party is a professional misconduct and is a deficiency in service. But according to the opposite party, he is entitled to file the E.P on the basis of the vakalath executed by the complainant at the time of filing the original suit and he filed the E.P and received the entire decree amount by instalments and it is with him and he was always ready and willing to pay the decree amount. But it was not paid due to the non co-operation of the complainant and due to the non-compliance of his direction to bring the complainant’s employer Skariah for settling the account as the case was entrusted by the said Skariah as he is the actual creditor of the suit amount and the complainant is only a Binami of his employer Skariah. In the circumstances, opposite party, on several occasions, informed the complainant and his employer to come jointly and collect the amount. But they failed to do so. At last, he sent a registered letter to the complainant on 21.02.2008 in this regard directing him to come with Skariah for settling the accounts. But he had not complied his direction or turned up. Subsequently, the decree amount with him was attached by an order of the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta in O.S.No.295/08. The Bar Council of Kerala also found that in this matter the opposite party has not committed any professional misconduct. Because of the above said reasons, opposite party was not able to return the decree amount and there is no professional misconduct or deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party.
11. From the available evidence, it is seen that the complainant and the opposite party are neighbours and the complainant was an employee of the above said Skariah at the time filing of the Civil Suit and it is further seen that he is not an employee of the said Skariah from 2002 onwards. As per Ext.A1 and A2 it is seen that the civil case filed by the opposite party before the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta as O.S.No.12/98 in the name of the complainant was decreed on 31.01.2004 and in that case an E.P.No.132/04 was also filed by the opposite party. At the same time, the complainant filed another E.P. as E.P.No.169/07 on 31.11.2007 through another advocate without the knowledge of the opposite party, and without obtaining vakalath reliquishment. The complainant’s argument is that he was compelled to file such an E.P as the opposite party has not taken any steps for recovering the suit amount till then. From this it is clear that the complainant and the opposite party had no connection and no contacts at least after the filing of the civil case till 17.09.2008, the date of registered notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party. If there had been any contacts between them, the complainant would not have file E.P.No.169/07. Further the said E.P was filed through another advocate without obtaining the vakalath relinquishment from the opposite party. It also shows the communication gap between the complainant and the opposite party. The long silence of the complainant till to 31.11.2007, the date of filing of E.P.No.169/07 shows that the complainant has not taken any steps for getting the decree amount. The said silence and the inaction of the complainant in this connection is unusual and cannot be justified. Further, there is no evidence from the side of the complainant showing that he had responded to the notice of the opposite party dated 21.02.2008 directing the complainant to come with the said Skariah for settling the accounts in connection with the decree amount with the opposite party. He demanded the decree amount at first only on 17.09.2008 vide Ext.A4 notice whereas his case was decreed on 31.01.2004. Opposite party’s specific case is that the complainant is only a Binami of the said Skariah. But the complainant never raised any objection or made any denial against the opposite party’s above said contention in any of the documents such as the complaint, proof affidavit or in Ext.A4, A9 and A10. What prevented the complainant from raising any objection or making any denial against the opposite party’s above said specific contention? Further, the complainant kept silence further for making a further demand for the decree amount even after the disposal and lifting of attachment in O.S.No.295/08 dated 22.10.2011 till his legal notice dated 23.01.2013 (Ext.A9) and till the filing of this complaint dated 29.06.2013. The above said silence of the complainant in respect of the opposite party’s contention and the inordinate delay of the complainant in proceeding against the opposite party and the filing of E.P.169/07 without the knowledge of the opposite party etc. shows that something was behind the curtain preventing the complainant from taking an immediate action in the alleged dispute between the complainant and the opposite party.
12. In view of the above facts and circumstances we are constrained to scrutinize the deposition of PW2. PW2 deposed before this Forum that the complainant herein was an employee of his business concern till 2002 and he did not know the opposite party and he never contacted him in connection with any cases. He further deposed during cross-examination that Jossy Zachariah is his son and he is not aware that whether any cases or warrants are pending against him and he is not aware about O.S.No.295/08 in which his son and the complainant are defendants. At the same time, he also deposed that his son is presently at abroad and he left India due to the failure of his business. The deposition of PW2 that he had no knowledge whether any cases or warrants are pending against his son and his ignorance about O.S.No.295/08 is not believable at the outset. PW2, the father of Jossy Zachariah cannot say that he is ignorant about the pending cases against his son when he is fully aware of the whereabouts of his son and the circumstances under which his son left India. So it is clear that what all he stated before this Forum are lies and it is for suppressing the real facts. Further, his deposition that he does not know the opposite party is also a lie as the opposite party is a permanent resident of Pathanamthitta Municipality who is an advocate practicing before the Courts of Pathanamthitta for more than 30 years and he is a known politician and as PW2 is a permanent resident of Elanthoor having business at Varyapuram which are situating very near to Pathanamthitta Town. The ignorant attitude adopted by PW2 is not believable and we are of the view that he had taken such a stand for suppressing the real facts. So his evidence is discarded.
13. In the circumstances and the inordinate delay of the complainant for taking actions for getting the decree amount, the filing of E.P.No.169/07 without the knowledge of the opposite party and his silence regarding the contention of the opposite party regarding the connection of Skariah in the money suit and the court attachment of the decree amount etc. shows that the opposite party was not able to disburse the decree amount received by him. Further the Bar Council of Kerala also found that the opposite party has not committed any misconduct etc. in this matter. Therefore, we find that there is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party. However, the opposite party cannot be justified in holding the decree amount hereafter and he has to return the decree amount to the complainant. Therefore, this complaint can be allowed partly.
14. In the result, this complaint is partly allowed, thereby the opposite party is directed to return the decree amount of Rs. 1,70,000 (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Thousand only) with him to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the aforesaid amount with 10% interest from today till the realization of the whole amount.
15. In the nature and circumstances of this case, no orders for interest, compensation and cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of December, 2013.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Thomas Koshy
PW2 : K.V. Skariah
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Certified copy of decree in O.S.No.12/98 of Sub Court,
Pathanamthitta.
A2 : Certified copy of the judgment in O.S.No.12/98.
A3 : Certified copy of the objection filed by the judgment debtor in
E.P.No.196/07 of Sub Court, Pathanamthitta.
A4 : Certified copy of the letter dated 17.09.2008 issued by the
complainant to the opposite party.
A5 : Certified copy of the petition submitted by the complainant against
the opposite party before the Bar Council of Kerala.
A6 : Copy of the counter/objection of the opposite party.
A7 : Certified copy of the decree in O.S.No.295/08 of Sub Court,
Pathanamthitta.
A8 : Certified copy of the judgment in O.S.No.295/08.
A9 : Copy of the legal notice dated 23.01.2013 issued to the opposite
party for the complainant.
A9(a) : Postal receipt of Ext.A9
A9(b) : Postal acknowledgment card of Ext.A9.
A10 : Copy of a correction notice dated 21.05.2013 issued to the opposite
party for the complainant.
A10(a) & A10(b) : Postal receipt and postal acknowledgment card of
Ext.A10.
A11 : Certified copy of the original petition in E.P.No.169/07 of Sub
Court, Pathanamthitta.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
B1 : Copy of the registered letter dated 21.02.2008 issued by the opposite
party to the complainant.
B2 : Copy of registered notice dated 23.02.2008 issued by the opposite
party in the name of the complainant.
B3 : Reply notice dated 28.02.2008 issued by Adv. George.M.Jacob to the
opposite party.
B4 : Certified copy of the order dated 30.10.2011 in C.P.No.128/08 of Bar
Council of Kerala.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Thomas Koshy, Kochuveettil, Chittoor Muri,
Pathanamthitta.
(2) P.K. Mathew, Advocate, Pathanamthitta.
(3) The Stock File.
