JUDGMENT : ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J. 1. The petitioners, who are the defendants in O.S.No.488/2010 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Muvattupuzha and the appellants in A.S.No.11/2016 on the file of the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha are before this Court in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking an order to set aside Ext.P2 order dated 04.02.2017 of the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha in I.A.No.67/2017 in A.S.No.11/2016 and permit them to take back the original of Exts.B4 and B9 documents, after substituting certified copies of those documents in the court records. The petitioners have also sought for an order directing the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha to hear and dispose of A.S.No.11/2016 at the earliest, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 2. On 06.03.2017, when this original petition came up for admission, this court admitted the matter on the file and issued urgent notice before admission to respondents 1 and 2 by speed post. The petitioners were also directed to serve notice on the respondents through their counsel appearing before the court below and produce a memo. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a memo on 30.3.2017. Despite service of notice, none appeared for respondents 1 and 2. 3. The main issue that arises for consideration in this original petition is as to the legality or otherwise of Ext.P2 order passed by the Sub Court, whereby the application filed by the petitioners, who are the appellants in A.S.No.11/2016, under clause (a)(i) of the first proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of Order XIII read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking an order to return Exts.B4 and B9 documents marked in O.S.No.488/2010 was turned down. 4. On 26.09.2017, when this original petition came up for consideration, this Court directed the learned counsel for the petitioners to produce a copy of the judgment of the Munsiff’s Court, Muvattupuzha in O.S.No.488/2010. Pursuant to the said order, the judgment and decree in O.S.No.488/2010 are placed on record as Exts.P3 and P4, along with I.A.No.1726/2017. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. In I.A.No.67/2017 filed in A.S.No.11/2016, the petitioners have sought for an order to return Exts.B4 and B9 documents marked in O.S.No.488/2010. Pursuant to the said order, the judgment and decree in O.S.No.488/2010 are placed on record as Exts.P3 and P4, along with I.A.No.1726/2017. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. In I.A.No.67/2017 filed in A.S.No.11/2016, the petitioners have sought for an order to return Exts.B4 and B9 documents marked in O.S.No.488/2010. The said application was filed under clause (a)(i) of the first proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of Order XIII read with Section 151 of the Code, which ended in dismissal by Ext.P2 order. 7. A perusal of Ext.P3 judgment in O.S.No.488/2010 would show that Ext.B4 document is a settlement deed bearing No.7396/2007 of the Sub Registrar Office, Kothamangalam. A copy of the said document has also been marked on the side of the plaintiffs as Ext.A3. The prior document of Ext.A3/B4 is a deed bearing No.2474/1987 of the Sub Registrar Office, Kothamangalam, which has been marked as Ext.A2. In Ext.P3 judgment, the Munsiff's Court found that Ext.A2 deed is a forged document, and for that reason, Ext.A3 deed is liable to be set aside. Accordingly it was declared that those documents are not binding upon the plaintiffs. The said finding of the Munsiff's Court is under challenge in A.S.No.11/2016 filed by the petitioners, which is now pending before the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha. The other document, i.e., Ext.B9 is the ownership certificate in respect of the building situated in the property covered by Ext.B4 deed. 8. Order XIII, Rule 9 of the Code deals with return of admitted documents. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 9, 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, where the suit is one in which an appeal is not allowed, when the suit has been disposed of; and 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 appeal has been disposed of. 9. 9. Going by the first proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 9, a document may be returned at any time earlier than that prescribed by Rule 9 if the person applying therefor delivers to the proper officer for being substituted for the original, in the case of a party to the suit, a certified copy; and in the case of any other person, an ordinary copy which has been examined, compared and certified in the manner mentioned in sub-rule (2) of Rule 17 of Order VII; and undertakes to produce the original, if required to do so. However, going by the second proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 9, no document shall be returned which, by force of the decree, has become wholly void or useless. 10. A plain reading of the first and second provisos to sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of Order XIII of the Code make it explicitly clear that, in the case of a party to the suit, a document may be returned at any time earlier than that prescribed by Rule 9, if such person applying therefor delivers to the proper officer for being substituted for the original, a certified copy of that document and undertakes to produce the original, if required to do so. However, going by the second proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 9, no such application for return of original can be entrained in respect of a document which, by force of the decree, has become wholly void or useless. 11. Rule 134 of the Kerala Civil Rules of Practice, 1971 deals with return of documents admitted in evidence. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 134, when a case has been finally decided and in an appealable case, after the appeal period is over, or the appeal is disposed of, documents which have been admitted in evidence, except those which have become void or useless by force of the decree, may be returned to the persons producing the same on their application. 12. In the instant case, in Ext.P3 judgment in O.S.No.488/2010, the Munsiff's Court found that Ext.A2 deed is a forged document, and for that reason, Ext.A3/B4 deed is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it was declared that those documents are not binding upon the plaintiffs. Ext.B9 is the ownership certificate in respect of the building situated in the property covered by Ext.B4 deed. Accordingly, it was declared that those documents are not binding upon the plaintiffs. Ext.B9 is the ownership certificate in respect of the building situated in the property covered by Ext.B4 deed. In view of the above said finding in Ext.P3 judgment, the petitioners are not legally entitled to maintain an application under the first proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of Order XIII of the Code unless and until the said finding is reversed by the appellate court. 13. In such circumstances, I find no valid grounds to interfere with Ext.P2 order dated 4.2.2017 of the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha in I.A.No.67/2017 in A.S.No.11/2016, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the challenge made in this original petition against Ext.P2 order dated 4.2.2017 fails. 14. The further relief sought for in this original petition is an order directing the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha to hear and dispose of A.S.No.11/2016 at the earliest, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. Considering the fact that the 1st petitioner is a senior citizen and that the appeal arises out of a suit of the year 2010, I deem it appropriate to direct the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha to dispose of A.S.No.11/2016, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment, if there are no legal impediments like interlocutory applications which require detailed consideration. In the result, this original petition is disposed of granting only the limited relief of early disposal of A.S.No.11/2016.