IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30232 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.O.RAMAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, AGED 59, S/O.APPUKUTTAN ADIYODI, CHANGATT OTHAYOTH HOUSE, CHELORE AMSOM, PERINGALAYIL DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, REP:BY P/A HOLDER, SRI.N.K.SREEKUMAR,AGED 44 YRS, S/O.SEKHARAN NAMBIAR, SANTI WILLA, PULIYANAMBALAM, PERINGATHUR, THALASSERY TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- C.H.RAVEENDRAN REP.BY P.A.HOLDER P.JAYACHANDRAN, PARAMBATH HOUSE, OLAVILAM AMSOM, DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR,J. ................................................... W.P. (C) No. 30232 of 2008 ................................................... DATED: 17-10-2008 JUDGMENT The Writ Petitioner represented by its power-or- attorney holder chalenges Ext.P9 order passed by the Addl. Sub court, Thalassery dismissing his application filed as I.A. 3241 of 2008 in O.S. 118 of 1999. The said suit instituted by the respondent herein is one for realisation of a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs allegedly borrowed by the petitioner herein on the strength of Ext.A2 cheque and A11 agreement. The petitioner disputed having executed Ext.A2 cheque and Ext.A11 agreement. He had earlier filed an application before the court below to send both the disputed documents to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram for expert opinion as to the age of the writings and the authorship of the same. The Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram returned the documents stating that it is not possible to determine age of the writing as also whether the writings were written on the date shown in the documents. Subsequently the petitioner filed another application requesting the court to send the disputed documents to the Central Forensic Science W.P. © No. 30232 of 2008 - Y -:2:- Laboratory, Hyderabad. That request also was complied with and they also returned the documents with the same opinion as was given by the Forensic Science Laboratory , Thiruvananthapuram. Thereupon, the court below dismissed the said application. The order dismissing the application was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing W.P. C. 26469 of 2008 . This Court as per Ext.P5 judgment dated 2-09-2008 did not interfere with the order of dismissal. This court observed that the petitioner is entitled to adduce other evidence in support of his case that the disputed documents were not executed by him. Thereafter the petitioner, instead of getting ready for the trial of the suit, filed I.A. 3241 of 2008 requesting the trial court to send the disputed documents to any of the five institutions referred to in the petition. Observing that two of his earlier petitions for the same purpose had been rejected by the court, and confirmed by the High Court the learned Sub Judge dismissed I.A. 3241 of 2008 as per Ext.P9 order dated 20-09-2008. It is the said order which is assailed in this Writ Petition . 2. I agree with the court below that in a suit of the year 1999 which had been listed for trial long ago the petitioner who had already failed to get the documents examined by experts for the purpose for which he sought their reference, was not entitled to file successive petitions W.P. © No. 30232 of 2008 - Y -:3:- for the same purpose. He has been given an opportunity to adduce other evidence by this Court while disposing of W.P. ( C) . No. 26469 of 2008 as per Ext.P5 judgment. It is high time that the case was tried and disposed of. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P9 order. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 17th day of October 2008. V.RAMKUMAR, Judge. Ani/ W.P. © No. 30232 of 2008 - Y -:4:-