IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 34045 of 2007(C) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/09/2007 IN IA 1034/2007 IN OS.162/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT, PALA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ SMT. ANNA CHANDY, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O CHANDY, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, VALLICHIRA KARA, VALLICHIRA VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.PRASANTH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. RAJESH AUGUSTINE, S/O AUGUSTINE, ENACHIPARAMBIL, LALAM KARA, LALAM VILLAGE. 2. ALEY CHANDY, W/O CHANDY, PULLIMOOTTIL HOUSE, VALAVOOR KARA, VALLICHIRA KARA, VALLICHIRA VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. 3. DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER. 4. MANAGER, DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KOTTAYAM, PALA MAIN BRANCH. R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR,SC,KTM DIST CO.BANK L R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF O.S.162/06 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PALA. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF I.A.1034/07 FILED BEFORE MUNSIFF COURT PALA. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF I.A.1008/07 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PALA. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.1034/07 DATED 28.9.07 PASSED BY MUNSIFF COURT, PALA. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.1008/07 DATED 28.9.07 PASSED BY MUNSIFF COURT, PALA. [ True copy ] P.A. to Judge. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 34045 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of January, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed against the order of the Munsiff, Pala in I.A. 1034/07 in O.S.162/06. It was an application filed by the plaintiff in the suit to send the power of attorney to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram for ascertaining the signature seen in the power of attorney. The contention of the plaintiff is that she had never executed a power of attorney and any act done or purported to be done under the power of attorney is legally not binding on her and therefore she had filed the suit. 2. The most aggrieved person is the Bank to whom the amount is due as the property is mortgaged on the strength of this power of attorney. The learned counsel for the Bank would submit before me that the Court below had held that the consideration of sending it for an expert opinion can be deferred till the evidence is over. It may be quite W.P.C 34045 OF 2007 -:2:- embarrassing to have a decision before the matter is finally closed. When the party asserts that she had not executed the power of attorney it is only desirable that an expert opinion is received and I may add not only with respect to the signature but also with respect to the thumb impression in the power of attorney for the reason that scientifically there cannot be very same thumb impression for two persons. There is considerable force in what the learned counsel for the Bank contends regarding the possible delay. Therefore I permit the counsel for the Bank as well as the counsel for the plaintiff to furnish addresses of experts who will be able to furnish the opinion within a short span of time. Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the petition is allowed and the Court below is directed to send the document for comparison of signature to an expert as well as the thumb impression. It is advisable that the admitted signature of the person anterior to the point of execution of the power of attorney or before the institution of the suit may be directed to be produced and that may be W.P.C 34045 OF 2007 -:3:- sent for comparison and not the signature in the vakalath or plaint. Needless to say that the plaintiff has to bear the expenses. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-