IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1900 of 2008(A) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/01/2008 IN IA.1565/07 IN OPEA.43/2005 of M.C.,PARAPPANANGADI .................... PETITIONER: ------------ MADAPPALLI HAMZAKUTTY, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.KUNGUMOHAMMED, CHETTALIPARAMBA HOUSE, CHEMMAD, TRIKULAM, THIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ------------- CHAPPANGATHIL HYDRU HAJI, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAHAMMED, CHAPPANGATHIL HOUSE, KODINHI, CHEMMAD, TRIKULAM, THIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------- WP(C) No. 1900 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 16th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed against the order of the Munsiff, Parappanangadi by which he had disallowed the prayer to send the document in comparison of handwriting by an expert. On earlier occasion, when the matter came up before this Court, it was disposed of as pre-mature giving liberty to the court below to consider, if situation arises, for comparison of signature. Thereafter, the present petition is filed. The court below has considered that point and held that there is nothing to show that the person, who had put the signature, is the present petitioner. The identity of the person is not proved. The Forest Department as well as the Government do not pursue the matter further. The criminal case registered was also closed. So, under those circumstances, there was nothing to connect the person with the participation in the auction itself. When such is the situation, there is no point in sending the signature for comparison by an expert thinking that it is the present person who has put the signature. Further, all these are interim orders, which are not revisable that are being challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, WP(C) No. 1900/2008 -2- which does not come within the four parameters, which allow entertainment of such application in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai , reported in 2003(3) KLT 490. Therefore, I decline jurisdiction and the writ petition is dismissed. (M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE) jg