IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 23RD BHADRA 1932 WP(C).NO. 28190 OF 2010(O) ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 2112 /2010 IN OS.10/2005 OF ADDL.SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- BABY LATHA, W/O.K.K.CHENTHAMARAKSHAN, AGED 45 YEARS, 901/32, VADAKKANTHARA VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. K.A.MAHALAKSHMI, W/O.BALARAMAN @ BALABADRAN, KUNNUKAD HOUSE, THENKURUSSI AMSOM & VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD-678 541. 2. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., FEDERAL TOWERS, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, ALUVA TOWN P.O., PIN-683101. 3. M/S.INTEGRATED ENTERPRISES (INDIA) LTD., 41/427, SEEMA, NEAR ABAD METRO HOTEL, RAJAJI ROAD, P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 011. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.28190 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 14th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Supplemental defendant No.3 has challenged Ext.P15, order passed by the learned Additional Sub Judge, Palakkad on I.A. No.2112 of 2010 in O.S. No.10 of 2005. Vide that order petitioner has been directed to give her specimen handwriting/signature in the open court notwithstanding that on a prior occasion that exercise was done in the presence of the Chief Ministerial Officer of that court. 2. Shorn of frills and embroideries, short facts are: Respondent No.1 filed the suit originally against respondent Nos.2 and 3-defendant Nos.1 and 2 alleging that 100 shares she had with respondent No.2 was found to be fraudulently transferred in the name of petitioner. She alleged that she has not signed the form for such transfer and wanted a declaration that the transfer is fraudulent. In the course of suit petitioner was impleaded as supplemental defendant No.3. She filed written statement contending that the son and brother of respondent No.1 handed over the share transfer deed form signed by respondent No.1 and duly attested by competent authorities and based on that, transfer W.P(C) No.28190 of 2010 -: 2 :- was effected. While so respondent No.1 obtained an order on I.A. No.2498 of 2008 to send the disputed document to the expert for opinion. That was followed by a direction to the petitioner to give specimen handwriting and signature. Though that order was challenged in this Court in a Writ Petition that challenge failed. Pursuant to that order handwriting/signature of petitioner was taken in the presence of Chief Ministerial Officer of the court. Not satisfied with that, respondent No.1 filed Exhibit P13, application to direct petitioner to give specimen handwriting-signature in the open court. That application was resisted by petitioner stating that the said exercise has already been done in the presence of the Chief Ministerial Officer of the court as per the direction of the learned Sub Judge and hence a further exercise in that way is not warranted and it amounted to harassment. Learned Sub Judge has rejected that contention and passed Ext.P15, order directing petitioner to give specimen handwriting/signature, thump impression, etc., in the open court. The date and time was fixed as 17.08.2010 at 11.00 a.m. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that since the specimen was taken in the presence of the Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court that is sufficient and hence further order like W.P(C) No.28190 of 2010 -: 3 :- Ext.P15 was not required. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has supported the order under challenge. 3. Though in so many words it is not stated in Ext.P13 that petitioner has not given her specimen handwriting/signature in the proper manner it is seen from the application that purpose was to get the specimen handwriting/signature of petitioner collected in the natural manner. That is revealed from the averments in paragraph 6 of the affidavit in support of Ext.P13, application. Learned Sub Judge has referred to that and said that to get the specimen handwriting/signature in the natural way it is necessary that it is collected in the open court (in the presence of the Judge himself). It is not as if such a course is prohibited by any provision of law. True, the same thing could have been done while the specimen handwriting/signature was collected earlier. But that or the fact that it was the same Judge who directed the specimen handwriting/signature to be collected in the presence of the Chief Ministerial Officer does not prevent the court from collecting the same in his presence, a second time. I am not inclined to think that petitioner is in any way prejudiced by Ext.P15, order or that her rights are affected. It is not disputed that petitioner is a resident of Palakkad Taluk and W.P(C) No.28190 of 2010 -: 4 :- hence there could be no complaint about traveling distance also. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find reason to interfere with Ext.P15, order. Resultantly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Learned Sub Judge shall give a specific date and time for petitioner to appear in the open court to give specimen handwriting, signature, etc., as required. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv