IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 6600 of 2009(O) ------------------------- OS.304/2007 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- HAMDULLA HANEEF, S/O. HANEEF SAIT, THAIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.T.I.ABDUL SALAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- SUNIL DUTT, S/O. PALANIYAPPAN, LEELA NIVAS, MULLACKAL, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. MR.R.AZAD BABU, SMT.DEEPTHI AZAD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.6600/2009 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT DTD. 13/09/2007 IN O.S.NO.304/2007 OF THE SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA. P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DTD. 13/12/2007 IN O.S.NO.304/2007 OF THE SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA. P3: COPY OF THE WITNESS SCHEDULE DTD. 05/06/2008 FILED BY THE DEFENDANT IN O.S.NO.304/2007 OF THE SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA. P4: COPY OF THE PAYMENT VOUCHERS DTD. 16/02/2007,09/04/2007 AND 09/05/2007. P5: COPY OF THE I.A.NO.2296/2008 IN O.S.NO.304/2007 OF THE SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA. P6: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF TO I.A.NO. 2296/2008. P7: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 30/10/2008 IN I.A.NO.2296/2008 IN O.S.NO.304/2007 OF THE SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA. P8: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 27/11/2008 IN WPC.NO.34607/2008 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, KERALA. P9: COPY OF THE I.A.NO.318/2009 IN O.S.NO.304/2007 OF SUB COURT ALAPPUZHA DTD. 20/02/2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. P10: COPY OF THE OBJECTION I.A.NO.318/2009 DTD.21/02/2009 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. P11: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 21/02/2009 IN I.A.NO.318/2009 IN O.S.NO.304/2007 OF THE SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 6600 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 15th June, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed by the defendant in a suit for arrears of rent, O.S.No.304/07 on the file of the Sub Court, Alappuzha. Admittedly, the petitioner was the tenant of the respondent, the plaintiff in the suit. In addition to arrears of rent, some other claims towards electricity charges, water charges etc. are also sought to be realised by the landlord in the suit. The petitioner/defendant advanced a plea of discharge contending for some period the employees of the plaintiff collected rent, issuing receipts. To prove his plea of discharge, he took steps for summoning the employees of the plaintiff and one among them was examined as D.W.4. When evidence of that witness was recorded, he disputed his signature in the receipts which are purported to have been issued by that witness towards collection of rent. The petitioner/defendant, thereupon, moved an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for comparison of the admitted signature executed in the bond by the witness (D.W.4) with the signatures appearing in the disputed receipts which are stated to have been subscribed by him. Plaintiff objected to the request by filing written objections. Learned Sub Judge, after hearing both sides, declining the request of the W.P.C.No.6600/09 - 2 - defendant rejected his application. Ext.P11 is the copy of that order. Impeaching the correctness of Ext.P11 order, the Writ Petition has been filed invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts and circumstances presented, I find no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned Sub Judge in declining the request of the defendant for comparison of the signature of the witness in the bond executed before the court with those appearing in the disputed vouchers. Though the reason stated by the learned Sub Judge in Ext.P11 order are not appealing, having regard to the disputed question arising for adjudication in the suit, I find that the attempt of the defendant for seeking a forensic examination of the signatures of the witness with his disputed signatures in the vouchers will not serve any purpose other than affecting the credibility of that witness. The defendant can very well prove his plea of discharge by other methods and the present attempt appears to be not bonafide, but, intended to prolong and delay the litigation. The Writ Petition is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE W.P.C.No.6600/09 - 3 -