IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2011 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP(C).No. 3936 of 2011(O) -------------------------------------- OS.NO.327/2008 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THALASERRY .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------------------------- CHALADAN SADANANDAN, S/O.MADHAVI, AMRITHA SADANAM, KANHIRODE AMSOM, THALAMUNDA DESOM, MAUVANCHERRY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF -------------------------------------------------------------- T.P.SHAMSUDHEEN, S/O.AHMEDKUTTY HAJI, KOLARI AMSOM, KALLUR DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.PIN-670 001 BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts OP(C)NO.3936/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1- COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.327/08 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THALASSERY. EXT.P2- COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT. EXT.P3- COPY OF INTERROGATORY AND ITS ANSWER IN I.A.1320/2011. EXT.P4- COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN I.A.NO.1879/11 IN O.S.327/2008. EXT.P5- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.1879/11 IN OS. 327/2008 EXT.P6- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE VERIFIED PETITION IN I.A.2631/11 IN OS.327/2008. EXT.P7- COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN O.S.327/08. EXT.P8- COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.2631/11 IN OS.327/2008. EXT.P9- COPY OF THE PETITION IN I.A.2632/11 IN OS.327/2008 EXT.P10- COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT IN I.A.2632/11 IN OS.327/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.3936 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.327 of 2008 of the court of learned Principal Sub Judge, Thalassery. Respondent sued petitioner for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 09.03.2007 allegedly executed by petitioner. Petitioner, while denying the signature in the agreement dated 09.03.2007 claimed that signed blank papers are obtained from him. Respondent sought permission to serve interrogatories on petitioner. That application was allowed and in tune with the request, petitioner answered the interrogatory where he claimed that he is not admitting the signature in the agreement dated 09.03.2007. Thereon respondent filed I.A.No.1879 of 2011 to send the agreement dated 09.03.2007 to the expert for opinion. The specimen signature of petitioner was obtained in court but, respondent being dissatisfied with the specimen signature, filed I.A.No.2631 of 2011 to summon the acquittance register and service book of petitioner and I.A.No.2632 of 2011 to send those documents to the expert for comparison with the disputed signature in the agreement dated 09.03.2007. Learned Sub Judge allowed I.A.No.2631 of 2011 by Ext.P8, order which is under challenge. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel that comparison is of no use since petitioner has denied the signature in the agreement dated 09.03.2007. 3. I am unable to accept that argument. It is because petitioner has denied the signature in the agreement dated 09.03.2007 that respondent was required to send that document to the expert with the admitted signature of OP(C)No.3936/2011 2 petitioner for opinion. Since specimen signature given by petitioner was not satisfactory, respondent wanted the acquittance register and service book which contained signature of petitioner to be summoned for comparison with the disputed signature in the agreement. That request was allowed. There is nothing wrong with that order. There is no reason to interfere with the said order. Original Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks