IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No.2618 of 2009 (J) -------------------------------- OS.365/1997 of MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- PRADEEP KUMAR.M.P, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. E. NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT GOKULAM, EDAT.P.O, KUNHIMANGALAM VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.M.NASARUDDEEN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. KOOVAKUNNEL MATHAI, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. MATHAI, ALAPPADAMBA AMSOM DESOM, ALAPPADAMBA. 2. K.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, S/O.KUNHAMBU, PODUVAL, VELLUR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.2618 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Counsel for the petitioner who is the claimant in O.S.365/1997 in relation to a bus attached before judgment submits that to establish his claim it is necessary that proof of due execution by the second respondent/ second defendant of Ext.A2 agreement in favour of K.P.Rajendran who executed Ext.A3 in favour of the petitioner is had and for the purpose the signatures of the second respondent who is absconding has to be obtained from the Vellur Service Co-operative Bank, Kandoth branch and the request made in that behalf by the petitioner was rejected by the court below vide Ext.P9 order and that the said order deserves to be reversed and I.A.80/09 has to be allowed to summon the Bank Manager for the production of the specimen signatures given by W. P. C. No.2618 of 2009 -2- the second respondent in the bank for the purpose of opening account by him as S.B. Account No.426. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that when the bus which was subject matter of transfer under Exts.A2 and A3 was attached before judgment in the suit by the decree holder/first respondent I.A.3112/97 was filed by the petitioner for release of the bus and accordingly the petitioner has taken delivery of the bus executing a bond for its production before the court. A person who has unconditionally undertaken to produce the attached bus before court as and when directed by the court and got the bus released from attachment cannot advance any independent claim to the bus claiming that he was having ownership over the bus by virtue of Ext.A3 from K.P.Rajendran who has got the bus transferred from the second respondent vide Ext.A2. There is absolutely no merit in the W. P. C. No.2618 of 2009 -3- prayer to have the signature of the second respondent being got examined by an expert in the circumstances and the court below cannot therefore, be faulted in dismissing the application though it is not on the said ground that the court below has dismissed the petition vide Ext.P9 order. This Writ Petition deserves only to be dismissed. In the result, I dismiss this Writ Petition. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-