Documents Produced With Writ Petition Must Be Marked With Description In Statement Of Facts Or In Grounds: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently clarified that while filing writ petitions, it is necessary to mark documents with description either in the statement of facts or in the grounds.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, while considering a writ petition, noticed that the exhibits produced in it were not marked as copy of the original documents with description but were shown in brackets after stating the relevant fact. However, in the affidavit accompanying the petition, there was a statement that the documents produced are true copies of the original documents.

The Court then went on to examine whether a statement to that effect in affidavit was sufficient or whether the exhibits are to be marked in the statement of facts. It looked into judgment/order rendered in WP(C) No. 24300/2021, OP(KAT) No.119/2019 and Siddique v. District Collector and Others [2006 KHC 1032] that referred to various provisions of the Rules of High Court of Kerala, 1971.

The afore judgments had highlighted that a brief description of exhibits produced in a writ petition must be given by stating that the documents are true copies of the original.

Considering the same, the Court observed:

“Keeping in mind the above principle, it is mandatory that the marking of the documents with a description is necessary in the statement of facts or in the grounds of the writ petition. This is the procedure followed by this court for decades. How these defects are not noted by the registry is surprising. The Registry has erred in numbering this writ petition without proper marking of the exhibits in the writ petition.”

Though the counsel submitted that the writ petition can be amended, the Court felt that it would be better to file a fresh petition. It thus gave liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh plea and disposed of the writ petition.

Case No: WP(C) No. 47857 of 2025

Case Title: Nowfal v. The Secretary, Angadippuram Grama Panchayat and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 74

Counsel for the petitioner: Muhammed Zain Shabeer P.P., Shibu Babu, Riyas B.S., Arun Kumar C.S., Anish M.M., Muhammadali Manekkathodi, Dhanya Palan, Vimal Kumar A.V.

Counsel for the respondents: P. Abdul Nishad – SC - Grama Panchayat, Vidya Kuriakose - Sr. Government Pleader

Click to Read/Download Judgment