IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17515 of 2009(O) ------------------------------------ OS.535/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT,ALUVA ................................................ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ VISWAMBHARAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, EDATHOTTIL HOUSE, OKKAL KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE SRI.KURIAKOSE G.THEKKEL RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- PAPPACHAN, S/O. PAILY, CHITTINAPPILLY HOUSE, KALADY KARA, VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK,. KALADY (PO). THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.17515 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.535/2006 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Aluva. Suit was one for recovery of money based on a promissory note. Execution of the instrument was denied by the defendant. Petitioner/plaintiff moved an application for sending over the instrument for examination to a forensic expert which was declined by the court below. Suit was later dismissed for default but restored later, on the application moved by the plaintiff. Petitioner, after restoration of the suit has approached this Court challenging the propriety and correctness of the order passed by the court below in dismissing his application to send the instrument for scientific examination to a forensic expert. Ext.P3 is the copy of the order by which the petition for the above purpose moved by the plaintiff was dismissed. Correctness and propriety of that order is sought to be assailed by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff. 3. The reasons adverted to by the learned Munsiff in Ext.P3 W.P.(C).No.17515 of 2009 - O 2 order are impeached as unsound under law and it is submitted by the counsel that examination of the instrument by a forensic expert as desired by the plaintiff is necessary to advance the ends of justice. I am not impressed with the submissions made by the counsel. Similarity of the signature or writing in the instrument alone an expert can state, and it is at best an opinion evidence, as under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the execution of the instrument is relevant and crucial when it is disputed by the defendant. I am afraid that the examination of the instrument by forensic expert has little significance in assisting the plaintiff to prove the execution of the instrument. Whatever be the reasons stated by the learned Munsiff in Ext.P3 order for declining the request, from the facts and circumstances presented and also the relief claimed in the suit, I find no interference with the order is called for. The writ petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-