IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 9959 of 2008(I) ------------------------- OS.1039/2004 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONER: ----------------------- VALSALA MOHANAN, W/O. MOHANAN, AGED 50 YEARS, KALLAYIL HOUSE,CHEMMANNOOR DESOM, AARTHATTU VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT: ------------------------ VIKRAMAN, S/O. VELUKKUTTY, OOTTUMADATHIL, KAIPARAMBU VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.PRABIN BENNY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)NO. 9959/2008 I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 15.7.05 FILED BY RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.2066/08 IN O.S.No.1039/04 DATED 6.3.08 FILED BY PETITIONER. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF COUNTER FILED BY RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY RESPONDENT DATED 14.3.08. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.3.2008 IN I.A.No.2066/08 IN O.S.No.1039/04 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE VKM M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.9959 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th May, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1039/04, on the file of Principal Sub Court, Thrissur. Respondent is the first defendant. The suit is one for partition. Respondent resisted the suit by setting up a Will. After a notary attested copy of the Will was produced and three witness examined, I.A.No.2066/2008 was filed by the petitioner to forward the Notary attested photo copy of the Will to the Administrative Officer, Security Printing Press of India, Nazik, Maharashtra, to ascertain the age of the stamp affixed in the notary attested copy of the Will. Under Ext.P5, it was dismissed. It is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that as the original Will was not produced and only a notary attested copy was produced, its genuineness is to be decided, and so learned Sub Judge should have allowed the application and sent the document to an expert. W.P.(C) No.9959/2008 2 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that apart from producing the notary copy of the Will, Sub Registrar was also examined, and in such circumstances, there is no illegality in Ext.P5 order. 4. On going through Ext.P5 order, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Sub Judge. The material question is not regarding the genuineness of attested photo copy of the Will, but whether the Will registered as Document No.137/93, dated 21.12.93, is the Will executed by the testator. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P5 order. Petitioner is entitled to challenge that order along with the final judgment in the suit, if it goes against him. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.