Order XI Rule 14 CPC: Kerala High Court Upholds Co-operative Arbitration Court’s Power to Seek Production of Records in Election Dispute
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala, Single Bench of Justice K. Babu dismissed a writ petition filed by a Co-operative Bank challenging an order of the Co-operative Arbitration Court directing production of records in an election dispute. The Court held that, under Section 70(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, the Arbitration Court is required to follow the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, including invoking Order XI Rule 14 to compel production of documents. It clarified that the Arbitration Court must adjudicate election disputes on the basis of pleadings and relevant evidence, and therefore found no ground to interfere with the directive while allowing the petitioner two weeks to comply.
The dispute arose from the election to the managing committee of a Co-operative Bank held on 16 December 2023. Several candidates contested the election, and certain members who were unsuccessful filed an election petition before the Co-operative Arbitration Court, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging irregularities in the voters’ list. They contended that a large number of persons included in the final voters’ list were from outside the jurisdictional limits of the Bank and that such inclusion affected the validity of the election.
In response, the returned candidates raised a preliminary objection challenging the maintainability of the election petition, contending that it had been filed beyond the prescribed time limit. The Arbitration Court, relying on Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, held that since the last date for filing the petition had fallen on a public holiday, submission on the following day was within the permissible period. The objection was accordingly rejected.
Subsequently, the petitioners before the Arbitration Court sought production of specific documents, including the Bank’s membership register, identity card records, and various materials relating to the conduct of the 2023 election, such as voters’ lists, nomination papers, ballot papers, and related communications and enquiry reports. They submitted that these records were necessary to substantiate their allegations regarding ineligible voters.
The Arbitration Court allowed the application and directed the Bank to produce the requested documents, citing their relevance to the issues raised in the pleadings. The Bank, represented by its Secretary, objected to this order, arguing that the documents were voluminous and unnecessary for adjudication.
The Court examined the scope of powers under Section 70(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, which grants the Arbitration Court the same powers as a Civil Court while trying a suit, including those under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure to order production of documents necessary for resolving matters in dispute.
Justice K. Babu recorded: “I have carefully gone through the pleadings in Ext.P1 election petition and the grounds canvassed by the petitioner in the Writ Petition. I am of the considered view that the documents directed to be produced are relevant for the adjudication of the dispute based on the pleadings set forth by the parties. There is no irregularities or impropriety in the order impugned (Ext.P9).”
Addressing the petitioner’s contention that the order could lead to an impermissible roving enquiry, the Court clarified that “the Arbitration Court trying the election petition has to adjudicate the dispute based on the pleadings and for the adjudication of the dispute based on the pleadings, the Court is required to allow the parties in the dispute to lead relevant evidence.”
Justice Babu noted that “in the trial of an election petition, the Tribunal or the Court concerned is bound to follow, as nearly as may be, the procedure as applicable to the trial of suits under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.” Under Section 70(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, the Co-operative Arbitration Court possesses the same powers as a Civil Court while trying a suit. Specifically, under Section 70(3)(ii), the Court can invoke Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which authorizes it “to order the production by any party thereto, upon oath of such of the documents in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question in such suit, as the Court shall think right.”
The Bench recorded that since the election petition contained a clear allegation regarding inclusion of ineligible voters, the documents sought were essential to determine whether such allegations held merit. Consequently, the direction to produce the records was consistent with statutory powers and procedural norms.
The Court observed that “none of the contesting respondents in the election petition has approached this Court challenging the order requiring production of the documents.” This fact, the Court noted, weakened the petitioner’s case.
The Court stated: “In view of the fact that the documents sought to be produced are relevant with reference to the pleadings in the Writ Petition, I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P9 order. Therefore, the Writ Petition stands dismissed in limine.”
“It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of any of the contentions raised by the parties in the election petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at the end, prayed for granting a month’s time to produce the documents. Having regard to the submission, the petitioner is granted two weeks’ time from this day to produce the documents required by the Arbitration Court.”
The petition, accordingly, stood dismissed without costs.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri. P.V. Baby, Advocate; Shri. Vineeth P. Baby, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Sri. C.M. Nazar, Standing Counsel for the Election Commission.
Case Title: Thalapalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Sebastian P. George & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:73776
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 36767 of 2025
Bench: Justice K. Babu
