IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2010 / 8TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2758 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OS.629/2008 of MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: -------------- SHOBI, D/. ABUBAKER, AGED 38 YEARS, VATTAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KUNNIKODE P.O., VILAKKUDI VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR. R.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT: --------------- ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O. ABDULKHADER, DARUL SALAM HOUSE, SAKTHI NAGAR, KARIKODUCHERI, MANGAD VILLAGE, MANGAD P.O., PIN: 691 004. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No. 2758 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of January, 2010. JUDGMENT The writ petitioner is the defendant in O.S No. 629 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kollam. The said suit instituted by the respondent herein is one for specific performance of an agreement dated 09.01.2002, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P1 before this Court. On receipt of summons in the suit, the petitioner filed a written statement denying the execution of the said agreement for sale. Ext.P2 is the written statement dated 24.09.2008. On 20.06.2009, the petitioner filed I.A No. 2554 of 2009 before the court below to send the disputed agreement to a handwriting expert to compare the signature therein with the specimen signature of the defendant to be taken by the court or to send some other document containing the admitted signature of the defendant for an expert opinion. The court below as per Ext.P4 order dated 23.12.2009, dismissed the said application holding inter alia that apart from the long delay in getting an opinion from the Forensic Science Laboratory, there was no possibility of getting a definite opinion on the signature alone without the other writings in the agreement W.P.(C) No. 2758/2010 : 2 : which are not made by the defendant. The court below also held that the dispute can be decided from other available evidence on record. 2. The date of the disputed agreement is 09.01.2002. No useful purpose will be served by obtaining the specimen signature of the defendant in open court in the year 2010. What is to be compared is a document containing contemporaneous writings and signatures. Hence, I do not find any illegality in Ext.P4 order passed by the court below. However, I make it clear that in case documents containing contemporaneous writings of the defendant are produced before the court, the court is entitled to compare the writings and signature therein with the disputed signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act and if any doubt exists, the court can very well send the disputed document to the expert for an opinion at the expense of the petitioner herein. Reserving this right, this writ petition is dismissed. Dated this the 28th day of January, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv W.P.(C) No. 2758/2010 : 3 :