IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 9299 of 2008() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.2690/2007 IN AS.65/2006 of ADDL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER: ------------ KAYAKKAL CHALIL PRADEEPA, D/O.SEETHA, AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT SCANDA COFFEE COMPANY, P.P.ROAD, GONIKOPPA, SOUTH COORG. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KAYAKKAL SEETHA, D/O.LAKSHMI, NURSE AT POTHERI NURSING HOME, VALAPATTANAM, KANNUR. 2. KAYAKKAL RAJESH, S/O.SEETHA, BUS OPERATOR, VALAPPATTANAM, KANNUR. 3. VELAPURATH MARIYATH, D/O.HAMZA, RESIDING AT VALAPATTANAM, KANNUR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.9299 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Thalassery in I.A.No.2690/07 in A.S.No.65/06. An application is filed in the appellate stage for comparing the handwriting by an expert. The suit centers around on the validity of a power of attorney alleged to be executed by the petitioner. Now a petition is filed for comparing her signature of the year 1987 with the disputed documents. It is also submitted that there are other signatures available. 2. I do not feel that it is the stage where comparison of signature has to be done. It is a settled principle that additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 is permissible only when in spite of due diligence or on account of subsequent development, the party is forced to submit those documents to be received in evidence. Therefore, I do not find that this is a situation where these requests are to be considered by the court. Therefore, the writ petition lacks merits and dismissed. But, I make it very WPC 9299/08 2 clear that it will not shut out the appellant from arguing the case on the basis of the materials available before the court below which has come from the trial stage. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE csl