IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21185 of 2009(P) -------------------------- OS.402/2001 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- BINOY VARGHESE, S/O.P.C.VARGHESE, SNEHA BHAVAN, KULANADA VILLAGE ULLANNOOR WARD, KOZHENCHERY TALUK. BY ADV. MR.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- SREEKUMAR, S/O.KUTTAN, TC 28/1381,HOUSE NO.SRA 103, SREEKANDESWARAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.M.SREEKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.21185 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext.P7 and quash the same. ii) To allow Ext.P6 petition in O.S.No.402/2001 on the file of II Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram.” 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.402/2001 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Suit is based on a promissory note and respondent is the plaintiff. In the written statement, among other contentions, petitioner disputed his signature in the pro note produced before the court on which suit claim was raised. On the request of the defendant the court ordered for sending over the pro note to an expert for forensic examination. However, defendant was not available to give his admitted signature for comparison as he is employed in a gulf country. So, the order passed for sending over the document to an expert for examination was suo motu reviewed W.P.(C).No.21185 of 2009 - O 2 by the court and the petition of the defendant was dismissed. Ext.P7 is the copy of that order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P7 order is challenged in this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. 4. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner could not appear before the court for the sole reason he is employed abroad. If two weeks time is granted, he will appear and give his signatures for comparison of those signatures with the signature appearing in the pro note. Learned counsel fro the respondent submitted that because of the dilatory tactics taken by the petitioner/defendant, the trial of the suit, instituted in 2001, could not be completed till date. Suit claim based on the pro note is for a sum of Rs. 3 Lakhs. Having regard to the long delay, after the institution of the suit, I find indulgence can be shown to the petitioner/defendant only on terms. Petitioner/defendant shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent/plaintiff as a condition precedent for allowing him to W.P.(C).No.21185 of 2009 - O 3 have forensic examination of pro note as previously ordered by the court under Ext.P3 order. Cost so ordered shall be paid to the counsel appearing for the respondent in this Court within two weeks from today. If cost is not paid as directed within the stipulated time, the writ petition shall stand dismissed without any further orders. Ext.P7 order shall stand set aside subject to the condition stated above and the petitioner is granted three weeks time after payment of the cost to the respondent to give his signature before the court for comparison with the signature appearing in the pro note to send it over to the expert for forensic examination. The court below is directed to remove the case from the list if it has already been included in the list for trial. The writ petition is disposed of subject to the directions as stated above. For report, post after two weeks. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-