IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2011 / 31ST SRAVANA 1933 OP(C).No. 2769 of 2011(O) -------------------------------------- OS.172/2009 of ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- DILEEP KUMAR, S/O.PADMANABHAN, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT VALAVATHU HOUSE, VAYALAR SOUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- ANIRUDHAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT VALAVATHU HOUSE, VAYALAR SOUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, PIN-688 536. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs OP(C).No. 2769 of 2011(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.172/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHERTHALA. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S. NO.172/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHERTHALA. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PETITION IN I.A. NO.2205/2011 IN O.S. NO.172/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHERTHALA. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PETITION IN I.A. NO.2204/2011 IN O.S. NO.172/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHERTHALA. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE PETITION IN I.A. NO.2199/2011 IN O.S. NO.172/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHERTHALA. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 09/08/2011 IN I.A. NOS.2199/2011, 2205/2011 AND 2204/2011 IN O.S. NO.172/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHERTHALA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.2769 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.172 of 2009 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff, Cherthala challenging Ext.P6, common order on I.A.No.2199, 2204 and 2205 of 2011. Respondent came with the suit asking for a declaration that Ext.B1, dated 08.01.2002 is not binding on the suit property as it is not executed by Padmanabhan, father of petitioner and respondent but, it is executed by another Padmanabhan, a nephew of the father of petitioner and respondent. Petitioner filed written statement resisting the claim. He filed Exts.P3 to P5, applications to summon the original of Ext.B1, document from the Co-operative Society, re-open the evidence and to send that document to the expert for opinion. Those applications are dismissed by the learned Additional Munsiff as per Ext.P6, order dated 09.08.2011. That order is under challenge 2. It is contended that in view of the contention raised by the respondent, expert opinion on the disputed signature in Ext.B1 is required. It is also pointed out that though steps were taken to examine the attesting witnesses it did not serve any purpose as one of the attesting witnesses was not found in the address stated and the other is not alive. OP(C) No.2769/2011 2 3. In Ext.P6, order learned Additional Munsiff has observed that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff (respondent herein). It is also observed that petitioner has taken steps to examine only one of the identifying witnesses. I am told that the evidence is over and case is posted for final order. At this stage, particularly as the learned Additional Munsiff has observed in paragraph 4 of the impugned order that it is for the respondent to prove that document was not executed by Velutha Padmanabhan and it was executed by Kochu Padmanabhan, the order under challenge does not require interference. I make it clear that if it is becomes necessary to challenge correctness of the impugned order, petitioner can challenge it in the appeal arising from the judgment and decree in O.S.No.172 of 2009 in view of Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure. With the above observation this Original Petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks