IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35492 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.343/2001 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANTO, S/O.KANNAMBUZHA KOCHAPPU, PARAVATTANI DESOM, OLLUKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THOMAS, S/O.KANNAMBUZHA KOCHAPPU, PARAVATTANI DESOM, OLLUKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. MARY ANTONY, W/O.CHALAKKAL VEETTIL ANTONY, MAIN ROAD, CHALAKUDY DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. LILLY MATHEW, W/O.CHUNKATH MATHEW, PARAVATTANI DESOM, OLLUKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 4. GEORGE, S/O.KANNAMBUZHA KOCHAPPU, KALATHODE DESOM, NETTISSERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 5. CHUMMAR, S/O.KANNAMBUZHA KOCHAPPU, PARAVATTANI DESOM, OLLUKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 6. THIMITHY, S/O.KANNAMBUZHA KOCHAPPU, PARAVATTANI DESOM, OLLUKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 7. BABY JOSE, W/O.PALISSERY JOSE, OLARI DESOM, ARANATTUKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT BOMBAY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.35492 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.343 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thrissur. Suit is filed for recovery of money from the 1st respondent/1st defendant, who is none other than the brother of the plaintiff. Suit claim is based on a promissory note allegedly executed by the mother of the plaintiff and 1st defendant, namely Kochamma (late). Admittedly, a suit had been filed against the plaintiff and some of the defendants in the present suit by the 2nd and 3rd defendants in the suit as plaintiffs claiming that only the daughters of late Kochamma, the mother of the plaintiff, are entitled to inherit her estate in view of a will executed by her. Petitioner/plaintiff has applied for summoning specimen signature card of late Kochamma, his mother, from a bank to have a comparison of her specimen signatures with that in the promissory note. After receipt of the specimen signature WPC.35492/09 2 card from the bank, petitioner/plaintiff applied for examination of the promissory note with the specimen signatures by sending them over to a forensic expert. The learned Sub Judge dismissed that application vide Ext.P5 order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. A report was called for from the learned Sub Judge to verify the statements made in the petition that long adjournment of more than ten months was made earlier in the suit by the court and that was the reason why the application could not be moved before. The report indicate that there was such a long adjournment of the case, which cannot be appreciated whatever be the reason for such adjournment. Whatever that be, it is seen from the report even after such long adjournment, there was more than one posting for pretrial steps and in the nature of the suit claim raised, if at all there is any dispute over the authenticity of the pronote as having WPC.35492/09 3 not been signed by late Kochamma, if such a contention had been raised by the defendants, then, naturally they are expected to take steps to substantiate that contention. In a suit filed in 2001, the petitioner/plaintiff has taken steps for sending the documents to the forensic expert especially where the document is purported to have been executed by the mother of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, against whom alone relief is sought for in the suit cannot be appreciated. In that view of the matter, I find no interference with the order passed by the learned Sub Judge is called for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I may also state that so far as the evidence to be collected by an expert by comparison of the signatures, it has the value of only opinion evidence as contemplated under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. When the specimen signature card of late Kochamma had already been collected, nothing prevents the court from examining the documents, if at all a dispute is raised as to the signatures appearing in the pronote as having been not executed by the maker of that bond, and form its own conclusion thereof. In WPC.35492/09 4 that view of the matter, I find no interference with the order is called for, and the writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp