IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932 OP(C).No. 107 of 2011(O) ------------------------ OS.2827/2007 OF III ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER (S): -------------------- KANAKAM @ PUSHPAVATHI, W/O.APPEKKATT ARIKATH VEETTIL, GOVINDAN NAIR, KATTUKULAM DESOM, KANIYARKKODU VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- VENUGOPALAN, S/O.KAKKASSERIKULAM GOVINDAN NAIDU, MANNUTHY DESOM, OLLUKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK-680 655. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.(C).No.107 of 2011 O ------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The respondent filed O.S.No.2827 of 2007 on the file of the court of the third Additional Munsiff, Thrissur, against the petitioner herein for realisation of a sum of Rs.65,000/- with interest. It is stated by the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.65,000/- on 7.12.2004. Evidencing receipt of the amount, the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. 2. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement in which she denied her signature and thumb impression in the pronote. However, it is also stated that some writings and her signature are available towards the last portion of the document. The case of the defendant is that blank signed papers were taken from her and the document was O.P.(C) No.107 of 2011 2 forged by the plaintiff. 3. The suit was listed for trial. The defendant filed I.A.No.8596 of 2010 to send the promissory note for comparison of the handwriting and signature therein with the handwriting and signature of the petitioner. It was stated that the handwriting and signature of the petitioner may be taken before court and the same may be sent for comparison with the disputed handwriting and signature. 4. The court below dismissed the application by the order dated 11.11.2010, which is under challenge in this Original Petition. The court below noticed that the petitioner/defendant did not want the thumb impression to be compared. As regards the signature in the vakalath and in the various affidavits filed by the petitioner, the court below observed that the signature varies from one another. It was, therefore, held that no useful purpose would be served by O.P.(C) No.107 of 2011 3 getting the opinion of an expert in respect of the signature. 5. The written statement was filed on 31.1.2008. However, the present application was filed in 2010 when the suit was listed for trial. Cogent reasons have been stated by the court below for dismissal of the application. No grounds are made out for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Original Petition is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl