IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23045 of 2008(R) -------------------------- OS.721/2006 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ V.P.MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.V.K.PADMANABHAN, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT SINDHOORAM, KOVILAKAM ROAD, KARAPPUZHA, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. L.P.PRAKASH, S/O.K.J.PAPPY, AGED ABOUT 47, PROPRIETOR OF M/S.KIRTHI GAS, PADINJAREKKARA CHAMBERS, K.K.ROAD, KOTTAYAM, RESIDING AT NJALLANATTU, KEEZHUKUNNU, KOTTAYAM - 2. 2. THE BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BPCL LTD., IRUMBANAM INSTALLATIONS, IRUMBANAM, KOCHI. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.23045 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 30th July, 2008. J U D G M E N T This petition is filed under Article 227 of the constitution of India challenging Exts.P11 and P12 orders passed in I.A.No.1485 of 2006 and I.A.No. 1486 of 2008 in O.S.No.721 of 2006, on the file of Additional Munsiff, Kottayam. Petitioner is the plaintiff. The suit is for permanent prohibitory injunction and for other incidental reliefs. I.A.No.1485 of 2008 was filed to receive a document confronted to the first defendant at the time of cross examination and denied by him. I.A.No.1486 of 2008 was filed to send that document to an handwriting expert to get an opinion about the signature after comparing with the admitted signatures of the first defendant. Learned Munsiff dismissed the applications holding that the document was not produced earlier and was shown to DW.1 at the time of cross examination and he denied the same and at the belated stage, it cannot be received and document therefore cannot be sent to the expert. W.P.(C) No.23045 of 2008 2 2. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the document sought to be sent to the expert and received as evidence contains signature of DW.1, and though it was not produced earlier, petitioner is entitled to confront the same, when first defendant was examined, and only when it was confronted, he denied the signature and therefore to prove the signature, learned Munsiff should have sent the document to an expert, and, therefore, Exts.P11 and P12 orders are to be quashed. 3. On hearing the learned counsel, and on going through Exts.P11 and P12 orders, I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner is entitled to challenge Exts.P11 and P12 orders along with the final judgment, if the judgment goes against him. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.