IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20720 of 2007(N) ------------------------------------- OS.35/2002 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- VERONICA EZHUTHANIKUNNAL, D/O.ANTONY, AGED 37 YEARS, CHAKKITTAPARA AMSOM, DESOM, P.O. CHAKKITTAPARA. BY ADVS. MR.V.V.ASOKAN MR.K.S.SAJEEV KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ KANAKKANCHERRY JOYI, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 47 YEARS, CHAKKITTAPARA AMSOM, DESOM, CHAKKITTAPARA VILLAGE, P.O. CHAKKITTAPARA. BY ADVS.MR.B.KRISHNAN FOR R1 MR.R.PARTHASARATHY FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.20720/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA. 241/07 IN OS. 35/02 DT. 3.3.07 OF SUB COURT, KOYILANDI. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE TSS S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.20720 OF 2007 (N) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.35/2002 on the file of the Sub Court, Koyilandy. Respondent is the plaintiff. Suit is one for recovery of money based on an agreement of sale, execution of which was disputed by the defendant in his written statement. On the application moved by the defendant, the documents was sent over to the Forensic expert for examination and after the report was received, the defendant moved an application for sending it over to another expert stating that no conclusive opinion had been given by the expert who examined the document. The learned Sub Judge, after hearing both sides and considering the report and other materials produced in the case, dismissed that application. Ext.P1 is the copy of the order. Impeaching the correctness and propriety of Ext.P1 order, petitioner has filed this writ petition invoking WPC.20720/07 2 the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner, impeaching the correctness of Ext.P1 order contended that some of the observations made in the order are highly prejudicial and are likely to cause injury to the defendant. Needless to point out whatever observations made by the court while dismissing an I.A. cannot be considered as decisive and, in fact, not to be taken into consideration at all in disposing the suit on its merit, which has to be done solely on the basis of the evidence tendered by the parties. Simply because the document had been sent over to a Forensic expert, no party to the proceedings can insist that it should be sent over to another for the reason the report given by the previous expert is not sufficient or lacking in some material particulars. These are all matters to be considered by the court in the trial of the suit. After all, opinion given by an expert after examining a document, as covered under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, WPC.20720/07 3 has got only the value of opinion evidence. Even ignoring the opinion, the court can form its own conclusion. So, no prejudice or injury is likely to be caused to any of the parties for the reason the expert has not furnished conclusive opinion on the disputed questions raised. Subject to the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R --------------------------------------------------------- 23rd March, 2009