IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2011 / 20TH ASHADHA 1933 OP(C).NO. 2174 OF 2011(O) --------------------------------------- OS.557/2005 OF FIRST ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- PALAT INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., PALAT HOSPITAL, WEST FORT ROAD, PALAKKAD-678001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR DR. RAMAN PALAT REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY T.C. JOSHY. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR SRI.C.R.REGHUNATHAN SRI.M.V.ASHIM SRI.B.HARRYLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. DR. M.K.MANI, S/O. LATE KUMARAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT 'KUMARA KRIPA',KRISHNASWAMY ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE FORENSIC LABORATORY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P(C) NO.2174 OF 2011 APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ---------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.557OF 2005 OF THE FILES OF FIRST ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S. NO.557 OF 2005 ON THE FILES OF FIRST ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.2174 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of July, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioner is defendant in O.S.No.557 of 2005 of the court of learned First Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam, a suit filed by the first respondent for specific performance of agreements dated 26.05.1994 and 21.10.1994 said to be executed by petitioner for sale of 1.23 acres of land. First respondent has alternatively prayed for recovery of `24,87,602/-. Learned counsel submits that petitioner has denied execution of the endorsements on the agreements above stated and accepting the request of petitioner, the said agreements were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (for short, “the FSL”) in the year, 2007 for examination of the disputed writings and signature. But, in spite of learned First Additional Sub Judge sending reminders, a report has not been sent up by the FSL. Hence intervention of this Court is requested. Learned counsel requests that this Court may interfere in the matter and issue direction to the FSL. 2. I am not inclined to think that learned First Additional Sub Judge is helpless in the matter if the report is unduly delayed. There are provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure which empower learned First Additional Sub Judge to ensure that the FSL submitted its report at the earliest. If submission of the OP(C) No.2174/2011 2 report by the FSL is unduly delayed, learned First Additional Sub Judge has to invoke the power vested on him. There is no reason why this Court should interfere in the matter. Resultantly reminding learned First Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam of the necessity to summon the report from the FSL as early as possible if it is unduly delayed, this petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks