IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27354 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15/07/2009 IN IA 515/09 IN I.A.NO.2618/2005 IN OS.113/2004 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SATHYAN KALLARAMKOTTIL, S/O.RARICHAN, SHYAMALA THADATHIL PARAMBIL, PUTHIYANGADI AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY HIS AUTHORISED POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER REEJU, S/O.RAVI, RAVITHA NIVAS, CHETTIKULAM, ELATHOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT: --------------- JAYANTH KUMAR, S/O.KOTTAN, THADATHIL PARAMBA, PUTHIYANGADI DESOM, KOZHIKODE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.27354 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To call for the entire records leading to Ext.P8 and issue a writ or order setting aside the same. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the !st Additional Sub Judge, Kozhikode to allow I.A.No.515/2009 in I.A.No.2618/2005 in O.S.No.113/2004 and set aside the order in I.A.No.2618/2005 in O.S.No.113/2004.” 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.113 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Kozhikode. Suit is one for specific performance of an agreement of sale and the respondent is the plaintiff. In the written statement petitioner/defendant disputed the agreement and also denied signature in the document produced. On an application moved by the plaintiff the agreement with other documents bearing admitted signatures of the defendant was directed to be sent over to a forensic expert. That order was challenged by the defendant filing a writ petition W.P.(C).No.27354 of 2009 - O 2 before this Court. At the time of hearing of that writ petition, petitioner sought permission for withdrawal of the writ petition reserving his right to file a review petition before the court below. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide Ext.P6 judgment. Pursuant thereto the petitioner moved Ext.P7 review petition before the trial court. Learned Sub Judge after hearing both sides dismissed the review petition vide Ext.P8 order. 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 counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary and it is dispensed with. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing confined his submissions seeking issue of directions/orders to the court below to grant him three months time to comply with the direction to appear before the court for subscribing his signatures before the court for sending them over with the documents to the forensic expert. Petitioner, who is now W.P.(C).No.27354 of 2009 - O 3 employed in a gulf country, has now sought for availing leave to come over India, is the submission of the counsel. I do not wish to express any view on the merit of the request made by the petitioner for extension of time. It is open to the petitioner to canvass that request before the trial court and if any such request is made the court shall consider it on its merit and pass appropriate orders, subject to such terms, as it deems fit and proper, if found allowable. Subject to the observations made above, the writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-