IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 25396 of 2008(W) ----------------------------------------- (AGAINST ORDER DATED 1/03/2008 IN I.A.NO.5528/07 IN O.S.NO.61/04 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR) PETITIONER: 1ST PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------ V.B. SHAJAN, S/O. BHASKARAN, AGED 50 YEARS, VADERIYATTIL HOUSE, MUNDOOR.P.O, ANJOOR, ANJOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SRI.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENT: ----------------------- DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD., MUNDOOR BRANCH, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, MUNDOOR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN,SC,DHANALAKSHMI BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 25396 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners are the defendants and respondent the plaintiff in O.S. 61 of 2004 on the file of Sub Court, Thrissur. Petitioners filed I.A. 5528 of 2007, an application to send the disputed revival letters allegedly executed by them to Forensic Science Laboratory to ascertain the period when the signatures were made. Under Ext.P5 order, learned Sub Judge dismissed the application. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging Ext.P5 order. 2. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioners is that it was specifically pleaded by the petitioners in the written statement that revival letters were not executed by them and those letters were created making use of the signed blank papers entrusted by the petitioners at the time of availing the loan and in such circumstances the date on which the signatures were put is relevant and to establish that signatures were not put on the date on which revival letters are seen WP(C)25396/08 2 executed opinion of an expert is relevant and necessary and therefore learned Sub Judge should have sent the documents to an expert as sought for. The argument of the learned counsel is that it is necessary because if there is no revival letters, the plaint claim will be barred by time. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through Ext.P5 order, I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference. An opinion with regard to exact date on which the signatures were put, cannot be accurately given by an expert. Therefore I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P5 order. Petitioners are entitled to challenge Ext.P5 order along with the final judgment, if it goes against them. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-