IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH DECEMBER 2008 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No.35911 of 2008 (A) ---------------------------------- O.S.225/03 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA PETITIONER: --------------- PARAMESWARAN NAIR, S/O.THEKKEPPATTU PARUKKUTTY AMMA, KODASSERY PO/VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT: ---------------- NANIKKUTTY AMMA, D/O.UPPATH PAPPI AMMA, NAYARANGADI, KODASSERY DESOM/PO, THRISSUR DT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C No.35911 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT The prayer in this Writ Petition filed by the first defendant in O.S.225/03 on the file of the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda is to quash Ext.P4 order passed by the court below and to give a direction to the court below to consider Exts.P2 and P3 afresh. Ext.P2 is objection filed by defendants 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 to Ext.P1 report of handwriting expert objecting to the findings therein and Ext.P3 is an application praying for setting aside Ext.P1 report. The court below vide Ext.P4 order dismissed Ext.P3 petition refusing to set aside Ext.P1 report and hence, this Writ Petition. 2. It is contended before me by the counsel for the petitioner that the report of the handwriting expert when properly W. P. C No.35911 of 2008 -2- considered will show that the findings arrived at by the expert cannot be upheld. The court below has observed that the Expert who has submitted Ext.P1 report was one selected from the panel filed by both sides and he was being appointed on consent and further that the evidence of expert as regards the genuineness of the will, is only an item of evidence which has to be considered along with other evidence that may be adduced in the case and that the expert when examined, the reasons stated by him etc. also will have to be considered to see whether his report is admissible or not and that Ext.P1 cannot be considered in isolation and it has to be considered along with the other evidence that will be adduced in the case and that at present there is no need to set aside the said report. Ext.P4 order so passed by the Sub Judge cannot be faulted and it is not that when an expert W. P. C No.35911 of 2008 -3- files a report a trial has to be conducted for the limited purpose of deciding as to whether the expert's opinion has to be accepted or not and to adjudge as to whether the report has to be set aside or has to be accepted. As rightly observed by the Sub Judge, it is an item of evidence and has to be considered along with the other evidence that may be adduced in the case and the question of acceptance of the report of the handwriting expert has to be decided on the basis of other evidence that may be adduced in the case regarding execution of the will. Ext.P3 application cannot be allowed at this stage as rightly found by the court below. 3. This Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-