IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH SATURDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 34869 of 2009(O) -------------------------------------- [ OS.154/2006 AND OS.NO.132/2009 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KANJIRAPPALLY] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- LINCY THOMAS, W/O. SHERLY THOMAS, PANAMATTATHU HOUSE, MUNDAKAYAM, MUNDAKAYAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STANLY P.THOMAS, SOUMYA BHAVAN, VATTAYAL CHURCH ROAD, ALAPPUZHA. 2. ELIZABETH STANLY, W/O. STANLY.P.THOMAS, SOUMYA BHAVAN, VATTAYAL CHURCH ROAD, ALAPPUZHA. 3. JOSE @ JOSEPH ANTONY,CHERUVIL HOUSE, PAIGANA BHAGOM, MUNDAKAYAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. LUCYKUTTY JOSEPH, W/O. ANTONY, CHERUVIL HOUSE, PAIGAMA BHAVAN, MUNDAKAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R3 BY ADVS. SRI.KKM.SHERIF, SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH, SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN, SRI.V.R.REKESH, SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.34869/2009-O: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION I.A. 1038/09. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS IN I.A. 1038/09. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REVIEW AS I.A. 1216/09 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KANJIRAPPALLY. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 12/10/2009 IN I.A. 1216/09 IN O.S. 154/06. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD. 30/06/2008 IN W.P.(C). NO.32732/2007. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 04/08/2008 IN W.P.(C).NO.2333/2008. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION FOR STAY IN O.S. 154/06. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 19/10/2009 IN I.A. 1295/2009 IN O.S. NO. 154/2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.34869 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT The plaintiff in O.S.No.154 of 2006 and defendant in O.S.No.132 of 2009 of the court of learned Munsiff, Kanjirappally is the petitioner before me challenging Exts.P4 and P8, orders passed in O.S.No.154 of 2006. Petitioner sought injunction against the respondents, in O.S.No.154 of 2006 claiming that sale deed relied on by the respondents and allegedly executed by her husband is a forged document. Petitioner applied to the learned Munsiff to send the document to the expert for opinion. Learned Munsiff appointed a private expert and directed petitioner to deposit `7,000/- by way of initial expense. Petitioner sought review of that order stating that no panel of experts was called for from the parties and that she being a poor widow, is unable to pay the sum of `7,000/- as initial bata. The application for review was dismissed by Ext.P4, order stating that there is no ground for review. Exts.P4 and P8, orders are under challenge. 2. Learned counsel submits that the document having been decided to be sent to the expert, could have been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (for short, “the FSL”) for examination which would be more authentic and less expensive. 3. Learned counsel for respondents contended that attempt of WP(C)No.34869/2009 2 petitioner is to prolong the litigation which started in the year, 2006 and that the challenge is to a document registered before the Sub Registrar. According to the learned counsel, sending the document to the FSL would take years to get the report. 4. Having heard learned counsel on both sides and having gone through Exts.P4 and P8, orders I am inclined to think that learned Munsiff having decided to send the document to the expert for opinion, the document could be sent to the FSL. May be, on account of pressure of work it may take some time for the FSL to complete the work. But it is within the power of the learned Munsiff to direct the authorities of FSL to give priority for examination of the document having regard to the pendency of the litigation from 2006 onwards. Resultantly this Writ Petition is allowed. Exts.P4 and P8, orders are set aside and it is directed that the document in question shall be sent to the FSL, Thiruvananthapuram for opinion. The authorities of FSL are directed to give priority for examination of the document in question having regard to the fact that the litigation is pending from 2006 onwards. Learned Munsif, based on the above direction shall give necessary instruction to the said authority for the purpose. The expense for the examination shall be met by petitioner. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks