JUDGMENT : Annie John, J. 1. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 716 of 2006 on the file of the First Additional Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam. The suit was filed for damages. It is alleged that the respondent has collected the passport and driving licence of the petitioner and produced the same along with the suit. The respondent could not arrange the visa in time and hence the petitioner could not go abroad. Finally, the respondent demanded exorbitant amount for arranging visa. But the petitioner did not accede to that. Hence he has filed the suit for damages. 2. The First Additional Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam as per Ext.P1 judgment dated 09.08.2007 dismissed the suit. Even though the petitioner requested the respondent to return the passport, he has not acceded to the request. 3. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 575 of 2010 before the Second Additional Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam for a mandatory injunction to get the petitioner's passport from the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent preferred A.S. No. 248 of 2010 against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 716 of 2006 along with I.A. No. 4483 of 2010 for condonation of delay of three years. The Munsiff Court, as per Ext.P2 judgment dated 29.07.2011 rejected the prayer to return the passport because of the pendency of A.S. No. 248 of 2010. Thereafter, the District Judge, Ernakulam as per Ext.P3 judgment dated 16.11.2011 dismissed A.S. No. 248 of 2010 in lieu of dismissal of the application for condonation of delay. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has no right or authority to retain the passport belongs to the petitioner. Since there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure to get back the document produced by the plaintiff in a proceedings, he filed this original petition seeking a direction to the Munsiff's Court to return the passport. It is further argued that keeping of the passport by the respondent is purely in violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner. 5. None has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record, it has turned out that the passport of the petitioner came into the possession of the respondent as a promise to procure employment visa. 5. None has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record, it has turned out that the passport of the petitioner came into the possession of the respondent as a promise to procure employment visa. Subsequently, the respondent initiated civil proceedings to get damages for the non-payment of visa charges and produced the passport before the Munsiff's Court. Now the entire dispute was finalised after the disposal of the appeal, it is up to the respondent to return the passport to the petitioner by getting it back from the Court. 6. The law on the subject is governed by the Passport Act, 1967. Section 3 of the Passport Act clearly lays down that no person shall depart from this country unless he holds in this behalf a valid passport or travel document. As far as a person holds a valid passport and the validity of which extends to a certain date, he is entitled to travel abroad. Section 2(c) of the Passport Act defines the passport authority thus: “Passport authority means an officer or authority empowered under rules made under this Act to issue passports or travel documents and includes the Central Government.” 7. In Smt. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and Another, AIR 1978 SC 597 , it is held that the expression personal liberty in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have been raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19. No person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law made by the State prescribing the procedure for depriving him and the deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure. If a law depriving a person of personal liberty and prescribing a procedure for that purpose within the meaning of Article 21 has to stand the test of one or more of the fundamental rights conferred under Article 19 which may be applicable in a given situation, ex hypothesi it must also be liable to be tested with reference to Article 14. If the direct and inevitable effect of an order impounding a passport may be to abridge or take away freedom of speech and expression or the right to carry on a profession, it would be violative of Article 19(1)(a). So, it is clear that nobody can withhold the passport which is a document issued by the Government for a person who wants to travel abroad. The passport is the property of the Union of India and only the Passport Authority can impound or withhold the passport by invoking Section 10(3)(c) of the passport Act. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no demur to the proposition of law that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The restrictions as to travel are clearly mentioned in the Passport Act. Presently there are vital information in the possession of the State Government which would attract Section 10(3)(c) and Section 10(3)(e) of the Act, which, if placed before the concerned Passport Officer, might even entail either impounding or revocation of the passport. 9. In this case, the petitioner has sought for getting back the passport from the respondent, who has produced it before the court below. In order to renew the same, he has approached the lower court to give a direction to the respondent to return the passport. The lower court has casually considered the matter and rejected the prayer. It is true that the passport is in the custody of the court below. The case was originated due to the inaction on the part of the respondent to take the petitioner abroad and according to the respondent, he has sustained liquidated damages as the petitioner did not proceed to go abroad. It is an admitted fact that the passport and driving licence are in the custody of the respondent and by utilising those valuable documents, the respondent has approached the lower court and that the matter was finally disposed of dismissing the suit. The court below has ordered return of driving licence to the petitioner, but denied return of passport. When the respondent has filed an appeal against the order of the court below, that was also dismissed as barred by limitation. The court below has ordered return of driving licence to the petitioner, but denied return of passport. When the respondent has filed an appeal against the order of the court below, that was also dismissed as barred by limitation. Now the passport is in the custody of the court below and the respondent is not ready to get back the passport from the court and return the same to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application before the court below and the same was also dismissed by the court below. 10. The only question is whether the passport can be retained by the court due to the failure on the part of the respondent to apply and get back the passport. It is also to be considered whether the petitioner is prevented from travelling abroad, so long as he holds a valid passport. It cannot be gainsaid that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Now the entire civil litigation initiated against the petitioner has been finalised. So, no purpose will be served by keeping the passport in the custody of the lower court. 11. Rule 134 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala reads as follows: “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. As per the above rule, the petitioner is not entitled to get back the passport from the court on an application as he is not the person who has produced the same before the court. Now, the position is that the respondent, who has produced the passport before the court, is not willing to apply and get it back and return the same to the petitioner. So, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the First Additional Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam to return passport No. E-8043132 marked as Ext.A10 in O.S. No. 716 of 2006 to the petitioner. 13. It is alleged that due to the adamant stand of the respondent that he will not return the passport to the petitioner, the petitioner is unable to go abroad. 13. It is alleged that due to the adamant stand of the respondent that he will not return the passport to the petitioner, the petitioner is unable to go abroad. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has got a job abroad and he is unable to pursue his ambition to go abroad seeking his livelihood as the original passport is in the custody of the First Additional Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam in connection with O.S. No. 716 of 2006. 14. The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and withholding of the same by the respondent is in violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner to go abroad. In the circumstances, the respondent is bound to give back the passport of the petitioner after getting the same from the court. Since the respondent is reluctant to give back the passport to the petitioner, the petitioner can approach the concerned court to redress his grievance. 15. In the result, the original petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file an application before the First Additional Munsiff's Court for getting back his passport and the Addl. Munsiff shall, after giving due notice to the defendant/respondent, return the passport to the petitioner on an undertaking from the petitioner that he shall return the passport as and when required by the court.