IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8096 of 2008(L) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- MARIYUMMA, W/O. KOYAMU HAJI, RESIDING AT VEDITHURAKKAL PUTHENPEEDIKAKKAL, CHERUKUDANGAD AMSOM, CHEMBULANGAD DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. ANEES, MINOR AGED 17, IN DO. DO. 3. PAYISS, MINOR AGED 3, IN DO. DO. (MINOR PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 REPRESENTED BY THEIR GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND, THEIR MOTHER, PETITIONER NO.1). BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT: ---------------------- HAMZA, S/O. VEDITHURAKKAL PUTHENPEEDIKAKKAL HYDROSE, CHERUKUDANGAD AMSOM, KARAMBATHUR DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 8096 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of March, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is preferred to set aside the order passed in I.A.14/08 in O.S.226/00. It was an application filed for sending the disputed signature to an expert for comparison. The Court below allowed the same and it is against that decision the defendants have come up with this writ petition. I am afraid that the Court below has not followed the directions given by this Court in the earlier writ petition WPC 36781/04. The learned judge of this Court held as follows: “Without entering into any discussion on the merit of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition, directing the Court below to allow the parties to adduce evidence as per law. If, after considering the evidence and the arguments, together with the disparities, if any, found in the characteristics of the signature in both the W.P.C 8096 OF 2008 -:2:- 1996 'karar' and the 1981 assignment deed, it is open to the Court below to resort to sending the signatures available in both these documents for an expert opinion.” 2. So there are so may conditions attached by this Court to resort to that method but the freedom is given so as not to shut out an opportunity to the party when the party is able to convince the Court after adducing evidence which is imperative to have the signature compared. But unfortunately the learned Munsiff without even reaching that stage had reconsidered and passed an order. It is against the direction of this Court. Therefore it requires interference and I direct the Court below to consider the matter afresh as the other side is not before me and dispose it of strictly in accordance with law taking into consideration the directions given by this Court in WPC 36781/04. In order to enable the learned Munsiff to have a fresh decision the order under challenge is set aside. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-