JUDGMENT : 1. The Original Petition is preferred by the Plaintiffs in three commercial suits on the files of Commercial Court, Kottayam. The plaints are for the realisation of money amounting to Rs.26 lakhs, stated to have been borrowed on three different occasions, i.e., 21.04.2015, 24.04.2015 and 02.05.2015. The amounts borrowed on the respective dates were Rs.6 lakhs, Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.10 lakhs. The demand is raised on the basis of a promissory note issued by the defendants. On failure, Suits were filed as CS No.432/2021 for an amount of Rs.18,71,000/-, CS No.309/2021 for an amount of Rs.37,40,300/- and CS No.22/2020 for an amount of Rs.11,21,800/-. Exts.P1 to P3 are the plaints filed before the Commercial Court, Kottayam. 2. The defendants filed written statement denying the transactions. It is denied that the defendants had approached the plaintiff for availing loan of Rs.36 lakhs in total. It is their case that on account of dire necessity, taking advantage of the precarious and vulnerable position of the defendants, the plaintiff compelled them to put their signatures in various printed forms and plain papers more than 10 in numbers. One Ipekutty Thomas, who is the person in charge of the financial institution, was instructed to get the blank papers signed and the signatures of the 2 nd defendant on the documents produced are false, fabricated and forged. The plaintiff is conducting an illegal establishment doing money lending business without following the statutory requirements. 3. The orders impugned in this Original Petition are Exts.P8, P11 and P14. Ext.P8 is the order of the trial court whereby it refused to examine witnesses Nos.1 and 4 in the witness schedule produced in IA No.14/2024. Ext.P11 is an order of the trial court refusing to summon documents from the office of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner that are related to statutory licenses, forms, returns etc. Ext.P14 is the order declining the direction to produce the statutory documents that are sought to be produced by the plaintiff. 4. According to the petitioners herein, the examination of PW1 is over and the cases were jointly tried. On 27.07.2024, prior to the defendants’ evidence, Ext.P7 witness list was submitted requiring the presence of four witnesses. The 1 st defendant was examined as DW1 on 31.07.2024. It is stated that much prior to that, the defence list was submitted. 4. According to the petitioners herein, the examination of PW1 is over and the cases were jointly tried. On 27.07.2024, prior to the defendants’ evidence, Ext.P7 witness list was submitted requiring the presence of four witnesses. The 1 st defendant was examined as DW1 on 31.07.2024. It is stated that much prior to that, the defence list was submitted. The first witness is the registering authority under the Money Lenders Act, i.e. the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner AIT & ST Department, Kottayam. The 2 nd and 3 rd witnesses are the Manager and Secretary of the bank and Co-operative Society respectively. The fourth witness is none other than the wife of the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff, who is also directly involved in the affairs of the plaintiff firm. The witness list was filed along with IA No.14/2024. I.A. No.15/2024 was preferred, i.e. Ext.P9 along with IA No.14/2024 for a direction to the first witness, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, to produce statutory documents listed as serial Nos.1 to 6 in Ext.P9. The other witnesses were also directed to produce specific documents which are necessary to prove certain transactions. The petitioners herein stated that they have assigned specific reason for summoning document Nos.1 to 6 by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and have also preferred I.A. No.16 of 2024 under Order XI Rule 14 CPC to produce three documents numbered a, b and c, as evident from Ext.P12 which are the statutory documents to be compulsorily maintained by an establishment conducting money lending business under the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 (for short ‘the Act’). 5. However, I.A. No.14/2024 has been partly allowed, whereby PW2 and PW3 were recalled, and the prayer to summon witness Nos.1 and 4 was rejected. But no specific reason was assigned for such rejection. Whereas I.A. Nos.15/24 and 16/24 were rejected on a common ground, as seen in Exts.P11 and P14, that the documents sought to be called under the Act are the returns filed and forms produced which are totally irrelevant to the subject of issue. 6. The case projected by the petitioners/defendants is that it is an admitted case of the plaintiff that the firm is doing financial business as recognized under the extant law. In that facet, the defendants contend that the plaintiff is an illegal establishment doing business in the field of money lending. 6. The case projected by the petitioners/defendants is that it is an admitted case of the plaintiff that the firm is doing financial business as recognized under the extant law. In that facet, the defendants contend that the plaintiff is an illegal establishment doing business in the field of money lending. In order to deny the transaction which is stated to be illegal in the Plaint, the defendants/petitioners herein brought the attention of this Court to the relevant provisions of the Act. As per Section 3(1) of the Act read with Rule 3(3) of the Kerala Money Lenders Rules, 1964 a licence is compulsory for money lending business. Section 4 prescribes the provisions for rejecting the licence. Section 2 (4A) of the Act defines the licensing authority as officers notified under the Act. Going by the Notification it can be seen that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner AIT & ST of Kottayam is the officer defined under Section 2 (4A) of the Act for Kottayam District. In order to prove the illegality of the money lending business and non- followal of the procedure by the plaintiff firm, the petitioners sought to bring the said authority as first witness on the defendants’ side since being the licensing authority, the transactions of the money lending business are controlled and monitored by him. Therefore, the trial court cannot deny the evidence sought from the said witness and the documents in his possession under no circumstances can be treated as not relevant. It is in such circumstances that the plaintiff claims that the firm is doing money lending business strictly under the Act and Rules. 7. Similarly, as per Section 9(1) of the Act, the firms involved in money lending business have to maintain compulsorily and mandatorily certain documents which are as follows : Under Sub-Clause (a) it is mandated to regularly record and maintain or cause to be recorded and maintained an account showing for each debt, i.e. the particulars of such debt: (i) Date of the loan, the principal amount of the loan and the rate of interest charged on the loan. (ii) The amount of every payment received by the money lender in respect of the loan and the date of such payment. 8. From the aforementioned provision, it is discernible that the date of the loan and the principal amount shall be recorded in the register to be maintained. (ii) The amount of every payment received by the money lender in respect of the loan and the date of such payment. 8. From the aforementioned provision, it is discernible that the date of the loan and the principal amount shall be recorded in the register to be maintained. Likewise, the amount received by the money lender in respect of the loan and the date of such payment are to be reflected in the books of account. Such books of accounts are to be maintained mandatorily to file returns by virtue of Section 9(1)(d) of the Act. 9. On the strength of these contentions, the petitioners herein are trying to establish that if a particular payment is effected by way of loan on a particular date with a particular amount, the same should be reflected in the books of account and the books of account shall be subject to verification of the officer defined under Section 2 (4A) by filing periodical returns. Such arguments are raised only to show the casual connection and relevancy of the statutory document as well as the books of account kept by the money lender which are highly essential to prove the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants. 10. Similarly, Rule 15(3)(a) contemplates, the quarterly returns relating to loans advanced by the money lender and deposits or loans received by the money lender in that quarter. Rule 15(3)(b) contemplates the yearly returns to be filed in respect of loans advanced, amount received including deposits should be reflected in such returns. This being the statutory position, in order to prove the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants, that should be reflected in the books of account of the money lender and in the statutory return to be filed by the money lender before the authority sought to bring in as first witness in I.A. No.14 of 2024. Thereby, it is discernible that the impugned transactions are to be reflected in the books of account of the plaintiff as well as in the returns filed before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. Thereby the view taken by the trial court that the same has no relevance is beyond jurisdiction of the trial court and is perversive. 11. Thereby, it is discernible that the impugned transactions are to be reflected in the books of account of the plaintiff as well as in the returns filed before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. Thereby the view taken by the trial court that the same has no relevance is beyond jurisdiction of the trial court and is perversive. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the defendants in CS No.432 of 2021 took a loan of Rs.30 lakhs from the respondents for the purpose of their Estate on 24.04.2015. They borrowed Rs.10 lakhs on the strength of a Promissory Note dated 02.05.2015. The Suit is related to the said transaction. 12. When they failed to repay and the notice sent was not replied to, the defendants were requested to execute a letter of acknowledgement on 08.02.2018 requesting them to repay. It was in their handwriting. They did not honour their undertaking to repay the amount. Thereafter a lawyer notice was issued on 30.01.2020. That was also declined to receive. Therefore, CS No.432/2021 is filed before the Commercial Court, Kottayam. Ext.R1(b) is the copy of the plaint, and Ext.R1(c) is the copy of the written statement. 13. It is further asserted that evidence was completed, and the suit was posted for final hearing. On the knowledge that the suit will be decreed, they preferred a petition under Order XI Rule 14 CPC for a direction to the defendants to produce certain documents, other than the documents already produced and marked which are absolutely irrelevant, in the written statement. The execution of a promissory note is denied in a vague manner and it is contended that only signed papers were given. It is also contended with respect to CS No.432/2021 that, in urgent need of money, the defendants approached the plaintiff and requested a loan of Rs.6 lakhs. It is contended by the defendants that a demand was raised by the plaintiff firm to put signature in blank paper and printed forms as a condition for sanction of the amounts. These facts are denied. For realisation of the amount, three suits were filed demanding the loan amount with 18% interest, if no interest is provided by the Negotiable Instrument. Therefore, the order rejecting the request to call for records is legally sustainable. 14. These facts are denied. For realisation of the amount, three suits were filed demanding the loan amount with 18% interest, if no interest is provided by the Negotiable Instrument. Therefore, the order rejecting the request to call for records is legally sustainable. 14. It is further argued that the contention of the petitioners that the claim for 18% interest is unlawful is not sustainable. Section 80 of the NI Act provides for 18% interest, if no interest is provided in the Negotiable instrument. It is also argued that the contention with respect to signed blank papers cannot be sustained since, when a promissory note is executed, it will be affixed with the required revenue stamp as a prerequisite and the promissory note is executed in white papers with revenue stamps of necessary value. These are the matters to be ascertained by the Sub Court on the basis of the evidence to be adduced. This is not a matter to be agitated in an Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 15. Here the challenge is with respect to the I.A. filed under Order XI Rule 14 CPC. The trial has started. Plaintiff and two witnesses are already examined as PWs 1 to 3 and the 1 st defendant is examined as DW1. It is also contended that these are the matters to be examined by the trial court. Finding that the contentions raised by the defendants are not sustainable, he filed I.A. No.16/2024 under Order XI Rule 14 CPC to protract the case. Therefore, the question to be decided in this Original Petition is the entertainability of the petition filed under Order XI Rule 14 CPC. The defendant has produced plaints in CS No.432 and 309 of 2021 and CS No.22/2020 as Exts.P1 to P3, respectively. Written statements in the above three Original Suits are also produced as Exts.P4 to P6 respectively. Ext.P7 is I.A. No.14/2024. All these documents are produced only to protract the litigation. 16. The defendants have admitted the receipt of Rs.6 lakhs and execution of the promissory note. That position is clear from the contention that signed papers are issued. The nature of such signed papers with revenue stamps of necessary value is a matter to be ascertained by the trial court. So, the question to be decided is the maintainability of the Original Petition filed under Article 227 for challenging Ext.P14 order. That position is clear from the contention that signed papers are issued. The nature of such signed papers with revenue stamps of necessary value is a matter to be ascertained by the trial court. So, the question to be decided is the maintainability of the Original Petition filed under Article 227 for challenging Ext.P14 order. There are no valid or relevant grounds raised for such a challenge. 17. The suit is primarily based on a promissory note. Therefore, the findings of the Sub Court that it is an attempt of the defendants to protract the litigation for dismissing the plea for witness schedule as irrelevant witnesses and irrelevant documents are sustainable. On an attempt to protract the matter, I.A. No.16/2024 was filed in CS No.432/2021. A copy of the counter affidavit filed in the said suit produced as Ext.P13 will prove that the contentions of the petitioners will not sustain. Large numbers of irrelevant documents are sought to be produced with the objective of complicating a simple suit for recovery of money on the strength of a promissory note, which is not denied specifically. 18. Section 118 of the NI Act stands for the presumption as to the negotiable instruments which says, until the contrary is proved, the presumption of consideration, the date, the time of acceptance, the time of transfer, order of indorsement, stamp, holder is a holder in due course, shall be made. This position is clear from the reported decision in Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Prabodh Kumar Tewari, [ 2022 (5) KHC 560 ] wherein it is held that the presumption which arises on the signing of a cheque cannot be rebutted merely by a report of a handwriting expert. Even if the details in the cheque have not been filled up by the drawer but by another person, this is not relevant to the defense whether the cheque was issued towards a payment of debt or discharge of a liability. The petitioner has also brought the attention of this Court to a reported decision Shalini Syam Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [2010 (3) KLT SN 90 : 2010 KHC 4492] wherein it is held that the power of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is that of superintendence/revision which is not greater than the power under Article 226. It is only to ensure that Tribunals function within the limits of their authority. The power under Article 227 is discretionary and has to be exercised on equitable principles. The power can be exercised in order to ensure that law is followed by such Tribunals and Courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested on them and not by declining to exercise jurisdiction which is vested on them. In such cases, the High Court can interfere in exercising powers under Article 227 in cases where patent perversity in the order of the Tribunal and courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principle of natural justice have been floated. Such power should be sparingly exercised. 19. In this case, the Original Petition filed under Article 227 cannot be entertained because the trial court, exercising its power under Order XI Rule 14 CPC, held that the petitioners/defendants are not entitled to cause the trial court to conduct an enquiry because the scope of the suit is limited. 20. In reply, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Supreme Court decision relied on by the plaintiff relates to prosecution under Section 138, which has nothing to do with the promissory note which is the subject matter of the suit in the present case. Therefore, the said decision, Ravi Prasad Supra has no relevance. The presumption under Section 118 relied on by the plaintiff to canvas the position that the burden is on the defendants to show that there is no consideration, etc, are liable to be rejected in as much as the case of the plaintiff cannot be proved by presumption. In order to attract presumption, two fundamental things have to be fulfilled. The first one is the basic fact from which the presumption can be drawn. The basic facts relating to the transaction are the alleged documents which had already been disputed and forgery and fabrication had been alleged. In the absence of the basic facts being proved no inferential fact can be deducted. Therefore, the presumption cannot be applied at this stage of proceedings. Moreover, Section 118 of the NI Act casts a burden on the defendant and it is therefore highly essential as a matter of right for the defendants to adduce evidence, that had been denied by the court below, which is illegal, perversive and beyond jurisdiction. Therefore, the presumption cannot be applied at this stage of proceedings. Moreover, Section 118 of the NI Act casts a burden on the defendant and it is therefore highly essential as a matter of right for the defendants to adduce evidence, that had been denied by the court below, which is illegal, perversive and beyond jurisdiction. 21. Shalini Shetty supra laid down the general principle of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, which categorises the situations in which the power of superintendence and revision is exercised, in the case of patent illegality by ignoring the statutory law. In the case on hand, foreclosing the chance of defendants to adduce evidence, being a gross injustice, the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 is attracted. Hence, the said decision stands in the favour of the petitioners herein. 22. I have heard Sri.C.S. Manilal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. G.S. Regunath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 23. Having considered the rival contentions, it appears that the petitioners herein availed a loan of Rs.6 lakhs from the respondent for which, as a prerequisite, they signed blank papers which were later alleged to be converted as a promissory note. Moreover, the unavailed amounts were claimed using the alleged promissory note and three suits i.e. CS No.432/2021, CS No.309/2021 and CS No.22/2020 were filed before the Commercial Court, Kottayam. According to the plaintiff, the petitioners herein borrowed money on three different occasions, namely on 24.04.2015 an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, on 02.05.2015 another amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and on 21.04.2015 an amount of Rs.6 lakhs. The amounts were availed allegedly executing promissory notes. On failure to repay, the aforementioned suits were filed claiming Rs.18,71,000/-, Rs.37,40,300/- and Rs.11,21,800/- respectively. 24. The suits were instituted before the Commercial Court, Kottayam by the respondent herein on the basis of alleged promissory notes. It is the case of the respondent company that they indulged in money lending business after complying with all the necessary formalities under the Act. The petitioners had executed promissory notes to avail the loans. They failed to repay, and the initial notices were not responded to by them. Later, lawyer notice was issued which was also not accepted. This was the circumstance in which the suits were initiated. Though the petitioners admit availing of Rs.6 lakhs, they deny the execution of promissory notes. The petitioners had executed promissory notes to avail the loans. They failed to repay, and the initial notices were not responded to by them. Later, lawyer notice was issued which was also not accepted. This was the circumstance in which the suits were initiated. Though the petitioners admit availing of Rs.6 lakhs, they deny the execution of promissory notes. Instead, it is alleged that signatures were obtained in blank papers as a condition for giving the money required by the petitioners. When the suit came to the trial stage, PWs 1 to 3 were examined, and 1 st petitioner was examined as DW1 with an intention to protract the proceedings on realising that suits were going to be decreed, petitioners approached the trial court with a fresh witness list by preferring I.A. No.14/2024 under Section 31 and 151 CPC for accepting the witnesses scheduled which was allowed in part as per Ext.P8. Later, he again filed I.A. No.15/2024 to summon the witness Nos.1 to 3 and to direct them to produce documents sought in the application. But that was rejected as per Ext.P11. Then another application as I.A.No.16/2024 under Order XI Rule 14 CPC was filed to call for certain records from the plaintiff himself. That was also rejected as per Ext.P14. Exts.P11 and P14 are rejected on the ground that it is only a delaying tactics. 25. Against that, the contention of the petitioners herein is that the respondent is stated to be involved in money lending business. As per Section 3(1) read with Rule 3(3) of the Act and Rules, a licence is compulsory for money lending activity. Section 4 provides the discretionary power to grant or refuse such licence. Section 2(4A) of the Act defines the licensing authority. In the case on hand such authority is in the first witness schedule attached in Ext.P7. As per Section 9(1) of the Act, those who were indulged in money lending business have to maintain compulsorily and mandatorily certain documents and under Sub-Clause (a) regularly record and maintain or cause to be recorded and maintained an account showing for each debt separately. The nature of such recording is explained under Sub-Clause (a) (i) and (ii). That is why the petitioners sought to bring the authorised officer under Sections 3 and 4, which are defined under Section 2(4A) by preferring I.A. No.14/2024. 26. The nature of such recording is explained under Sub-Clause (a) (i) and (ii). That is why the petitioners sought to bring the authorised officer under Sections 3 and 4, which are defined under Section 2(4A) by preferring I.A. No.14/2024. 26. In order to prove the transactions as per the documents contemplated under Section 9(1) the petitioners have preferred I.A. No. 15/2024. Since both these requests were declined by the trial court, I.A. No. 16/2024 was preferred to obtain the documents to prove the transaction from the records which are to be maintained by the money lender under Section 9. All these requests were denied by the trial court on the reason that the requests were irrelevant and were an attempt to protract the proceedings. 27. However, on evaluating the circumstances, it appears that it is an admitted fact that the petitioners availed a loan from the respondent. What is in dispute is the number of loans and the amount of loans. It is an admitted case of the respondent that petitioners had availed loans by executing promissory note to repay the same, and the firm is involved in money lending business. It is also argued on the strength of Rule 118 of the NI Act that the presumption is on the part of the defendants, which is the general presumption. To meet the contentions with respect to the general presumption, it requires some material evidence. To adduce such material evidence the only source available to the defendants is to bring the necessary documents before the trial court. 28. To ascertain such official documents, an officer needs to be examined. That is the first witness who is the authorised officer under Section 2(4A) of the Act and the nature of the documents to be maintained are explained under Section 9(a). Those are the documents sought to be called by the petitioners by preferring I.A. Nos.14 and 15 of 2024. Those applications were rejected, especially the witness list, without assigning proper reasons and calling for the records were declined on accepting the objection raised by the respondent on the reason that it is an attempt to protract the proceedings. Those are the documents sought to be called by the petitioners by preferring I.A. Nos.14 and 15 of 2024. Those applications were rejected, especially the witness list, without assigning proper reasons and calling for the records were declined on accepting the objection raised by the respondent on the reason that it is an attempt to protract the proceedings. That appears to be a denial of justice on a perverse finding without proper application of mind since the provisions of the Money Lenders Act are crystal clear with respect to the maintenance of documents and the need for registration of the firm involved in the money lending business. 29. Those factors were not properly considered and evaluated by the trial court. The documents and the witness under the provisions of the Money Lenders Act are crucial documents and witnesses to rebut the presumptions as mandated under Section 118 of the NI Act. Therefore, the findings of the trial court in Ext.P8 and P11 are perverse. The only available source for the petitioners to obtain certain documents that the respondent would have maintained under the provisions of Section 9 being a licensed money lender as per Section 3 is to file an application. That was also denied on an improper application of mind and on a prejudicial attitude as an attempt of the petitioners to protract the matter. That cannot be countenanced, especially in the background of presumption under Section 118 of the NI Act as contended by the counsel for the respondent. Therefore, the findings in Ext.P14 are also perverse. 30. In the aforementioned circumstances, the bar to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227, as the petitioners contended on the strength of Shalini Syam supra, cannot be sustained. 31. On the aforementioned findings, the petitioners have made out a good case that warrants interference under Article 227 to set the trial court correct as there is a manifest failure of justice on the part of the trial court. Accordingly, the Original Petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside, directing the Trial Court to reconsider I.A. Nos.14, 15 and 16 of 2024 filed by the petitioners herein.