IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 FAO.No. 9 of 2010() ------------------- AS.100/2006 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY OS.58/2004 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT -------------------- THANNISSERYKANDY ESSA, S/O.MOOSSA, AGED 49 YEARS, BEHIND CHRISTIAN CHURCH, KOLARI AMSOM, MATTANNUR DESOM, P.O.MATTANNUR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN RESPONDENT/ APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF ---------------------- K.KARUNAKARAN, S/O.CHATHU, AGED 53 YEARS, KUNIYIL HOUSE, P.O.KOTTAYAMPOYIL, KOTTAYAM AMSOM, KINAVAKKAL DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.C.VALSALAN FOR R SRI.GHOSH YOHANNAN FOR R SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN FOR R SMT.THUSHARA.V FOR R THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. --------------------------- F.A.O. No.9 OF 2010 --------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this FAO is the judgment of the Additional Sub Judge, Thalasseri by which the suit was remanded to the trial court. Even though several grounds have been raised at the time of hearing, Sri.P.U.Shylajan, the learned counsel for the appellant, would highlight two points. The first point was that the lower court has observed in the judgment that the defence version is highly improbable. The second point was that the lower appellate court has directed the trial court to send the signature on the original of Ext.A1 cheque for a forensic scrutiny and report. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the observations in the judgment will cause serious prejudice to the appellant while the suit is finally adjudicated. He also submitted that if A1 cheque is to be sent for forensic scrutiny, all the writings on the cheque should be made subject matter of the scrutiny and not the F.A.O.No.9/2010 2 signature alone. We find elements of genuineness in the grievance voiced by Sri.Shylajan. Infact Sri. Valsalan, learned counsel for the respondent, also did not raise any serious objection to our issuing appropriate clarifications or directions in the context of the grievance voiced by the appellant. 2. Accordingly, even as we are not inclined to set aside the remand judgment under appeal, we direct the court below not to be influenced in any manner by any of the observations made by the learned District Judge in his judgment dated 13.10.2009 and also by any observations contained in the original judgment in the suit by which the suit was dismissed while taking decision in the suit pursuant to the impugned judgment of remand. We also modify the direction in the impugned judgment and direct the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Thalassery, to send the original of Ext.A1 along with other admitted signatures and writings of the defendant in the suit to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram for obtaining a report at the cost of the plaintiff regarding the genuineness of the purported signature of F.A.O.No.9/2010 3 the defendant on Ext.A1 and also the purported writings on Ext.A1. The FAO is disposed of accordingly without any order of costs. (PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ps