IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 14TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27040 of 2008(R) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 3216/2007 IN OS.30/2007 of PRL.SUB COURT,THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER: ------------ V.K.SURAJ, S/O.SHANKU, SRUTHI SAREES AND READYMADES, LOGANS ROAD, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENT: ------------- P.S.GEORGE, S/O.SEBASTIAN, PUTHANPURAKAL HOUSE, ERENHOLI P.O., CHUNGAM, THALASSERY TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/09/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== W.P.(C) NO.27040 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 5th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.30/2007 on the file of Sub Court, Thalassery. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P7 order passed by the learned Sub Judge. I.A.3216/2007 was filed by the petitioner to send the disputed agreement as well as the letter acknowledging the liability to an expert to find the age of the signature and also whether the handwriting of the letter of acknowledgement is that of the petitioner. 2. Learned Sub Judge rejected the first prayer on the ground that no scientific method is available to fix the age of the signature. The second prayer was rejected on the ground that there is no specific allegation with regard to the handwriting in the letter acknowledging the debt. The argument of the learned counsel for the W.P.(C)27040/08 2 petitioner is that as petitioner has a specific case that he did not write the disputed letter and in the plaint it is alleged that the letter was written by the petitioner, learned Sub Judge should have obtained a report of the expert and if report is obtained, it would disprove the case that the letter was written by petitioner. 3. As rightly found by the trial court, plaint does not contain a recital that the letter acknowledging the debt was written in the handwriting of the petitioner. Therefore there is no necessity to disprove the said case by sending to an expert. Similarly there is no scientific method of exactitude to decide the age of the signature. In such circumstance, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in Ext.P7 order. If after recording the evidence, court finds that report of an expert is necessary to find out the handwriting or the signature, Ext.P7 order will not stand in the way. Petitioner is also entitled to W.P.(C)27040/08 3 challenge Ext.P7 order along with the judgment if it goes against him. Writ Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006