IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2008 / 2ND MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 36614 of 2007(H) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.NO.4573/2007 IN OS.27/2004 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,PARAVUR . ................... PETITIONER: ------------- K.C. VARKEY, KOONRAN THAZHATHUPARAMBIL PEECHANIKADU, ANGAMALI. BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. M/S. SILVER LINE FINANCIERS, SEENAI CENTER, ANGAMALI. 2. ANIL PAUL, MANAGING PARTNER M/S. SILVER LINE FINANCIERS, PAINADATHU HOUSE, NEAR AIRPORT, NAYATHODE. 3. JONHY KURIAKOSE,S/O.KURIAKOSE, PADAYATTIL HOUSE,VENGOOR. 4. JOBY MATHEW,S/O. MATHAI KOTTACKAL HOUSE ANGAMALI. 5. PAULSON VARKEY,S/O. VARKEY, PAINADATHU HOUSE, NAYATHODE. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC : 36614 OF 2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.07.11.07. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED IN REPLY TO EXT.P1. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF IA NO.4573/07. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY TO EXT.P3. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN EXT.P3 DT.5.12.07. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 36614 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge, North Paravur in IA 4573/07 in O.S. 27/04. It is an order whereby the learned Subordinate Judge has permitted to send a photocopy of two documents for comparison of signature. 2. At the outset, I may like to point out that the first and foremost duty of the court is to find out whether photocopy of the documents are admissible evidence especially in the light of the provisions under the Evidence Act. A photocopy of the document, at the best, can only be a secondary evidence and unless it is proved that the original document is lost or irrecoverable, it may not be justifiable for any court to accept that document as a secondary evidence. This aspect has not been considered by the court below at all. Secondly, it is also for the court to decide whether it is proper for the court to send a photocopy of the document to compare the signature because what is scientifically required is the character and WPC NO 36614/07 2 other features in a handwriting that will be the telling circumstances to prove the writing of a person. Since these matters have not been considered by the court below in the correct perspective, I set aside the order passed by the court below and direct the court below to consider IA 4573/07 in O.S. 27/04 afresh in the light of the above mentioned principles. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 36614/07 3