IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31726 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/08/2009 IN IA.442,443/09 IN OS.17/2006 of SUB COURT, PALA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MATHAI @ JOBY, S/O.LATE GEORGE, AGED 46 YEARS, VARAKUKALAYIL HOUSE, ARUVITHURA KARA, POONJAR THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GEORGE, S/O.LATE GEORGE, AGED 41 YEARS, VARAKUKALAYIL HOUSE, ARUVITHURA KARA, POONJAR THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. JOHNY @ DOMINIC, S/O.LATE GEORGE, AGED 46 YEARS, VARAKUKALAYIL HOUSE, ARUVITHURA KARA, POONJAR THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31726 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is one of the defendants in O.S No. 17 of 2006 on the file of Sub Court, Pala. Petitioner has disputed the genuineness of a will produced in the case. On the request of the petitioners and also other defendants, the will was sent over for examination to a scientific expert in Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram. Pursuant to such examination, a report was filed before the court. Petitioner moved two applications Ext.P8 and Ext.P9, the former for examining the scientific expert and the latter for sending over the will to another expert for a fresh report. Both the applications were opposed to by the plaintiff filing objections. The court below dismissed Ext.P8 and Ext. P9 applications vide W.P.(C).No.31726 OF 2009 Page numbers Ext.P11 common order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P11 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and hence it is dispensed with. Perusing Ext.P11 order, I find the court below has only relegated the challenges canvassed by the petitioner to the report filed by the scientific expert for consideration at the stage of trial. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are some observations in the impugned order which may tilt the opinion of the court with respect to the report filed by the scientific W.P.(C).No.31726 OF 2009 Page numbers expert. I find there is no basis for such apprehension. I make it clear that the court below shall consider the challenges canvassed by the petitioner to the report of the forensic expert untrammelled by any of the observations made in Ext.P4 order provided steps are taken for examination of the expert in trial. Writ petition is disposed as indicated above. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv