IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2010 / 20TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25079 of 2010(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/03/2010 IN IA.6395/2009 IN OS.1038/1998 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- ROBERT P.J, S/O.JOSEPH GEORGE, AGED 49,HOUSE NO.11/1022,PADINJARE VEEDU WEST OF NAZRETH CHURCH,MATTANCHERRY P.O, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU SRI.SURAJ KRISHNA.B.S RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. K.C.JOSEY, KURISINKAL HOUSE,NO.9/153, EAST OF VELI SCHOOL,FORT KOCHI VELI,KOCHI, MATTANCHERRY VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. PIN - 682001. 2. JESSY JOSEY, KURISINKAL HOUSE, NO.9/153,EAST OF VELI SCHOOL,FORT KOCHI VELI, KOCHI,MATTANCHERRY VILALGE,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. PIN - 682 001. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.25079 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 11th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT By a single line order learned Sub Judge has directed the cheque involved in the case to be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (for short, “the FSL”) for examination. That order was passed on the request of respondents. Petitioner/plaintiff contends that there was no necessity to sent the cheque for expert opinion in that, in the plaint what he has stated is that respondent No.1/defendant No.1 handed over the cheque to him while in the written statement respondent No.1 has admitted that signature in the cheque belonged to him though according to him a signed blank cheque was given to the petitioner. Respondent filed I.A.No.6395 of 2009 stating that it is necessary to ascertain oldness of writings in the cheque obviously with intend to show that writings which were not made on the date the cheque came into existence later. Application was resisted by the petitioner but as I stated by a single line order learned Sub Judge was pleased to allow that application. It is contended by learned counsel that there was no necessity to get cheque examined by the expert and that examination by the expert would only prolong the proceedings. W.P.C.No.25079 of 2010 : 2 : 2. No doubt, petitioner has no case that cheque was filled up by respondent No.1/defendant No.1 in his presence and signature in the cheque is admitted by respondent No.1 also. But, obviously it is to prove that writings in the cheque came into existence only after the date shown in the cheque that assistance of the expert is required. Though learned Sub Judge has not adverted to the contention raised by the parties having heard counsel for petitioner and in the circumstances under which application itself was preferred I am persuaded to think that order is not required to be interfered with merely for the reason that it is not a speaking order. At the same time, one expected the learned Sub Judge ought to pass a speaking order since parties and the superior courts are entitled to know the reason for passing the order. Writ petition is dismissed. Learned Sub Judge shall take every endeavour to ensure that report of the expert is obtained at the earliest. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/- W.P.C.No.25079 of 2010 : 3 :