IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 23465 of 2007(R) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 263/2007 IN OS.33/2004 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY .................... PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. THAYYIL KAPPINTAVIDA KUNHABDULLA HAJI, S/O. AMMAD, AGED 62 YEARS, PUTHENPURAKKAL, VILLIAPPALLY AMSOM, THIRUMANA DESOM,VATAKARA TALUK 2. THAIKUTTY MEETHAL KATHEESA, D/O. KUNHAMMAD, AGED 48 YEARS, PUTHENPURAKKAL, VILLIAPPALLY AMSOM, THIRUMANA DESOM,VATAKARA TALUK 3. THAIKUTTY MEETHAL USMAN HAJI, S/O. KUNHAMMAD, AGED 49 YEARS,VILLIAPPALLY AMSOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. PONEMRIKANDIYIL THAMASIKKUM MADATHIL SHAREEFA, D/O. MOIDU, AGED 38 YEARS, VILLIAPPALLY AMSOM, DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. PUTHIYAKAMMAVEETTIL RASIYA, D/O. T.K. MOIDU, AGED 45 YEARS, AZHIKKAL AMSOM, DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. KADANKANDYELIKKAL KHAIRUNNISSA, D/O. MAMMU HAJI, AGED 43 YEARS, THIRUVANGAD AMSOM, DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. SRI.VINEETH KURIAKOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO 23465/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. COPY OF THE REPORT NO.C.S.26/2006 DT. 9.10.06 ISSUED BY SENIOR ASSISTANT STATE FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORTORY, TVM EXT.P2. COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 263/07 IN OS 33/04 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, KOYILANDY DT. 9.3.07 /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 23465 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Koyilandy, in IA 263/07 in OS 33/04. 2. The said application is filed for sending the document to a second expert for opinion. The court below held that the question of sending the document for a second opinion would arise only if the court is dissatisfied with the report of the first expert. The court also held that the reasons for the report have been clearly stated by the expert. The court further held that if the court finds at the time of the trial that it is a case wherein second opinion is required, the prayer of the petitioners can be considered at that stage. So in other words the court has preserved the right of the writ petitioners to challenge the correctness of the experts opinion and to apply for a second opinion on adducing evidence regarding the incorrectness of the present report. 3. On considering the facts, I think it is the most appropriate way, for the reason that otherwise the court will be appointing experts WPC NO 23465/07 2 after experts and there will be different opinions, which will ultimately result only in confusion rather than settling the dispute between the parties. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of leaving open the right of writ petitioners to challenge the report of expert opinion as well as the necessity to have a fresh expert appointed. The court shall try to endeavour to dispose of the suit, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of reopening of the court after summer holidays. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 23465/07 3 WPC NO 23465/07 4