IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25864 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 5253 & 5255//2009 IN OS.126/1998 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): PLAINTIFF IN O.S.: ---------------------------------------------------- RAPPAI, S/O.MOILAN PARANCHU, PRANAMKUTTICHIRA ANGADIYIL, EDAKUNNY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV.MR.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANTS IN O.S.: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JOSEPH, S/O.MACHINGAL CHERIYAN, CHIRAKKATHODE DESOM, MADAKKATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. ALECE, D/O.PAVATTASSERY ANTONY, W/O.IST DEFENDANT, CHIRAKKATHODE DESOM, MADAKKATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.25864 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs: i. to issue a writ of certionrari or other appropriate wirt, order or direction, calling the original of Exts.P5 and P6 orders in I.A.No.5253/2009 and I.A.No.5255/2009 in O.S.No.126/1998 on the file of the IInd Additional Sub Judge, Thrissur and quash the same. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.126 of 1998 on the file of the IInd Additional Sub Court, Thrissur. Suit is one for recovery of money on the basis of an agreement. The petitioner/plaintiff had applied for sending a document produced by the defendants and exhibited in evidence as Ext.B13 for expert opinion after reopening of the evidence. WPC.25864/09 2 That petition was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions and taking note of the facts and circumstance presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary, and, hence, it is dispensed with. It is seen from the order passed by the court below, the document which was exhibited in evidence as Ext.B13 was produced by the defendant as early as in 19.1.2005. It was only after the closing of the evidence, the petitioner/plaintiff had applied for sending that document for expert opinion. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the need for such a course arise only after the document was exhibited in evidence. I do not find any merit in that submission. Suit involved is seen filed nearly a decade ago, and it is still pending on the file of the court below. I find no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the court below declining the WPC.25864/09 3 request of the petitioner/plaintiff for sending the document for expert opinion. The court itself can look into the document and consider its genuineness. The learned counsel wanted this Court to make it clear that filing of a writ petition and its dismissal will not in any way affect his rights to canvass the same grounds in appeal, if at all an adverse decision is entered in the suit against him. Needless to point out, whatever be the observations made by this Court in the present judgment, it will have no bearing or reflection in the challenges to be raised against the decree to be passed in that suit. Writ petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp