IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 23RD BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25503 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.1388/2006 of I ADDL.M.C.,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHIBU, S/O.KANJIRATHINGAL JOHNY, AGED 29 YEARS, MULAYAM VILLAGE, VALAKKAVIL DESOM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SINTO GOPI, S/O.PARAYIL GOPI, THONNIPARA DESOM, KAINOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.25503 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P2. ii) To call for the records of the case and to pass appropriate orders.” 2. Petitioner is the defendant in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale in which, in the written statement he had denied the execution of an agreement of sale. On an application moved by him the agreement was sent over to a forensic expert for examination and report with his admitted signatures. The expert after such examination filed a report expressing an opinion that the signatures in the document on comparison with the admitted signatures appear to be the same. Not being satisfied with the report, the petitioner moved an application for setting aside that report and also for sending the document to another expert. That application being dismissed, petitioner has filed the present writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 W.P.(C).No.25503 of 2009 - O 2 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Having regard tot he submissions made and the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary and it is dispensed with. 5. The report sent by the expert is a piece of evidence in the case and if at all the petitioner has any valid tenable objections to the report its validity could be challenged by taking appropriate steps as provided by law. For the sole reason that he is not satisfied with the report, without the previous report being set aside the petitioner cannot seek for sending the document again to another expert. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the court below turning down the request of the petitioner for sending the document again to another expert. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-