IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 11TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26469 of 2008(A) -------------------------- OS.118/1999 of SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER: -------------- C.O.RAMAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, AGED 59, S/O.APPUKUTTAN ADIYODI CHENGATT OTHAYOTH HOUSE, CHELORE AMSOM, PERINGALAI DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, NOW TEMPORARILY RESIDING AT OUT OF INDIA. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: ------------------ C.H.RAVEENDRAN, REP. BY P.A.HOLDER, P.JAYACHANDRAN, PARAMBATH HOUSE, OLAVILAM AMSOM, DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.26469 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd September, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the defendant and respondent the plaintiff in O.S.No.118 of 1999, on the file of Additional Sub Court, Thalassery. Petitioner originally filed C.R.P.No.3 of 2005 before this Court, when I.A.No.1589 of 2004 was dismissed by learned Sub Judge, under Ext.P1 order, this Court, on the submission of the petitioner that I.A.No.2358 of 2002, an application to sent the disputed documents to an expert ascertaining whether the writings in Exts.A2 and A11 were really made at the time when the documents were purporting to have been executed, disposed the revision directing trial court to dispose I.A.No.2358 of 2002 without delay. Thereafter, disputed documents were forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram. It was returned stating that no scientific technique is available to determine the absolute age of typewritten matters. Thereafter, at the instance of the petitioner, W.P.(C) No.26469 of 2008 2 it was thereafter forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. Ext.P2 report was sent by the Deputy Examiner of Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, stating that it is not possible to express any opinion regarding the absolute or relative age of typewritings of Ext.A2 and Ext.A11. Learned Sub Judge thereafter under Ext.P6 order dismissed the application. It is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. Learned senior counsel argued that the question whether signature in the disputed document is given on the date of execution of the document or earlier is very relevant for a decision to be taken in the suit, and in such circumstances, an opportunity is to be granted to the petitioner to get a further opinion and even if the opinion to be given is not exact, petitioner is entitled to get an opinion, and, therefore, Ext.P6 order is to be quashed. W.P.(C) No.26469 of 2008 3 4. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in Ext.P6 order warranting interference. When the disputed documents were forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram, the opinion was that it is not possible to give an opinion as sought for. When it was again sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, the same opinion was forwarded. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P6 order. Petitioner is entitled to adduce any other evidence in support of his case that the disputed document was not executed by him. Petitioner is also entitled to challenge Ext.P6 order along with the final judgment, if it goes against him. The writ petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.