IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32519 of 2009(O) -------------------------------- O.S NO.428/2000 OF SUB COURT, PALAKKAD ......................................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MEENAKSHI, W/O.LATE GANGADHARAN AGED 70 YEARS, PATHICHIRA, MUTHALAMADA VILLAGE CHITTUR TALUK, PALGHAT DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. C.RAJAN, S/O.RAVUNNI, CHALIYEDATH HOUSE CHATHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. B.SURESH, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, AREEKKODE HOUSE, NEAR N.S.S.COLLEGE, AYILOOR VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK,PALGHAT DISTRICT. 3. NIRMALA, W/O. GOPALAN, VAZHUVAKKODE HOUSE, PATTANCHERRY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALGHAT DISTRICT. 4. VIJAKUMARI, W/O. K.S.JAYARAJAN, KONNAYATH HOUSE,VELLAROAD, MANKARA VILLAGE PALGHAT DISTRICT. 5. SUSEELA, W/O.ARAVINDAKSHAN, MALLANKULAMBU, MUTHALAMADA VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALGHAT DISTRICT. 6. RADHA, W/O. K.PRABHAKARAN, CHALINGAL VEEDU, KAVASSERY KULAMBU,VERKOLI, POLPULLY VILLAGE, PALGHAT DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.32519 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is one among the plaintiffs in O.S No. 428 of 2000 on the file of Sub Court, Palakkad. The other defendants in the suit are respondents 3 to 6 in the petition. Respondents 1 and 2 are the defendants in the suit. Suit had been filed for a declaration that a registered assignment deed purported to have been executed on the basis of a power of attorney of the plaintiffs and also that power of attorney are null and void, and not binding on them. The defendants resisted the suit by filing a written statement. Plaintiffs had moved an application to direct the defendants to produce the registered assignment deed and also the power of attorney. In response, the defendants filed an affidavit that they are not in possession of those documents. The plaintiffs had also moved another application for taking the expert's opinion on the authorship of the signatures contained in the disputed power of attorney. That application which has been filed as early in 2005 is still pending for consideration before the court as the defendants W.P.(C).No.32519 OF 2009 Page numbers despite directions given have not produced the disputed documents is the case of the plaintiffs. The application moved by the petitioner for seeking the expert's opinion on the disputed documents had been allowed by the court with direction to the defendants to produce the disputed documents. But the disputed documents were not produced by the defendants. They contended that the documents were mortgaged in a bank. However, later it was found that there was no mortgage in favour of the bank, according to the plaintiffs. Later the defendants contended, according to the plaintiffs, that the property had been sold to another and the documents had been handed over to him. Meanwhile the suit was listed for trial. Plaintiffs moved an application for removing the case from the list. That application was dismissed by the court below vide Ext.P8 order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that the court below has passed an order directing the purchaser of the property to produce the documents. They are yet to be produced. Since the court has allowed the application for sending over the documents W.P.(C).No.32519 OF 2009 Page numbers to an expert and the steps for such examination could not be completed, in view of the inconsistent pleas taken by the defendants and nonproduction of the disputed documents, removal of the case from the list providing an opportunity to the plaintiffs to get an expert's opinion on the disputed documents is essential to advance the ends of justice, is the submission of the counsel. Having regard to the fact that the suit was instituted as early in 2000, at this stage, I find it difficult to accept the submissions made by the counsel. The application had been moved by the plaintiffs to seek expert opinion as early in 2005, and, whatever be the circumstances or conduct of the defendants in nonproduction of the documents, it is apparent that appropriate steps by the plaintiffs, at the appropriate time, have not been taken for compliance of the orders passed by the court to have the expert opinion on the disputed documents. I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P8 order passed by the court below. Writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv