IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2008 / 23RD ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30174 of 2008(P) ------------------------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-I, KOZHIKODE IN I.A.NO.4055 OF 2007 IN O.S.634 OF 2006) PETITIONER:FIRST RESPONDENT:PLAINTIFF: -------------------------------------------------------------------- YASODA, AGED 72 YEARS, W/O KARNARAKUTTY, ERALI HOUSE, KARUVISSERY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENTS:PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ERALI SANTHOSH, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O CHANDRAN, CONDUCTOR, CHERUVANNOOR AMSOM, DESOM, P.O. FEROKE, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. CHANDRAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O UNNERI, KARUVISSERY, KOZHIKODE. 3. K.M.PREMALAHA, AGED 63 YEARS, D/O KUTILA @ LAKSHMI, KUNNUMMAL THAPPATHA HOUSE, MAKKADA, KOZHIKODE. 4. N.V. DEVI, AGED 61 YEARS, D/O KUTTILA @ LAKSHMI, KUNNUMMAL THAPPATHA HOUSE, MAKKADA, KOZHIKODE. 5. T.USHAKUMARI, AGED 47 YEARS, D/O.KUTTY @ LAKSHMI, POKKARATHODI, PUTHIYANGADI, KOZHIKODE. 6. BABU, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O KUTTULI @ LAKSHMI, KOTHANGAD PARAMBU, FLORIKAN ROAD, MALAPARAMBU, KOZHIKODE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== W.P.(C) No.30174 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 15th day of October 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Addl.Munsiff's Court-I, Kozhikode in I.A.No.4055 of 2007 in O.S.No.634 of 2006. The learned Munsiff by the said order had permitted the comparison of the disputed thumb impression with a thumb impression seen in the bank's documents. In order to send signature or thumb impression for comparison, there must be one admitted signature or thumb impression and then the disputed thumb impression or signature. The signature which is found in the documents of the bank is also disputed by the writ petitioner. So a situation had arisen where two disputed signatures have to be sent for comparison. It is not proper. Therefore, I set aside the order of the learned Munsiff and direct him to permit the defendants to summon the bank officials who had produced the documents, prove the thumb impression of the person and thereafter on satisfaction that it is the signature put by the said person, send it for comparison. There is no other method because there is no other admitted signature available to be sent for comparison. So, I set aside the WP(C) 30174/2008 -:2:- order and direct the learned Munsiff to reconsider the matter after affording equal opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence and then take a decision regarding the signature seen in the bank documents and thereafter pass appropriate orders. Writ petition is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-