IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 9179 of 2008(P) ------------------------- OS.105/1997 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER: ------------ T.V.NARAYANA PANICKER, S/O.APPU NAIR, LAKSHMI SADANAM, CHERUVANNOOR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN SRI.ARUN VISWANATH RESPONDENT: ------------- INDIRA DEVI, W/O.P.K.NAIR, PARADAM, KARUVASSERY POST, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Petitioner’s Exhibits:- Ext.P1:- True copy of Addl. Written Statement Ext.P2:- True copy of demand promissory note executed by respondent Ext.P3:- True copy of document executed by respondent and Vijayalakshmi in favour of Siddique Ext.P4:- True copy of judgment dt.23.1.07 in WP(C)2128/07 of this court Ext.P5:- True copy of order dt.2.8.07 in OS 105/97 Ext.P6:- True copy of report dt. 29.11.07 Ext.P7:- True copy of application filed by respondent in IA 492/98 Ext.P8:- True copy of counter affidavit in IA 492/08 Ext.P9:- True copy of order dt. 6.3.08 in IA 492/08 Respondent’s Exhibits:- Ext.R1(a):- True copy of IA 5871/06 in OS105/97 dt.7.12.06 Ext.R1(b):- True copy of impugned promissory note dt. 8.7.94 Ext.R1(c):- True copy of Assignment deed No.388/93, S.R. O., Feroke, dt. 30.1.93 Ext.R1(d):- True copy of objection to Ext.R1(a) dt. Nil filed by petitioner. //True Copy// P.A. to Judge M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P(C). NO. 9179 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Plaintiff in O.S. 105 of 1997 on the file of Sub court, Kozhikode is the petitioner. Defendant is the respondent. This petition is filed challenging Ext.P9 order passed by the learned Sub Judge, where under the disputed document was sent to a second expert. 2. The learned senior counsel submitted that before the writ petition was filed and an order was passed by this court on 8.3.2008, trial court has already forwarded the document to the second expert and the second expert had already submitted a report and in such circumstances the trial court may be directed to dispose the suit based on the evidence to be adduced in the suit. The learned senior counsel also submitted that petitioner may be permitted to challenge the report before the trial court. Petitioner is definitely entitled to challenge the correctness of the report submitted by the expert. WPC9179/08 2 3. As pursuant to the order challenged in this writ petition, document was forwarded to the expert and the expert has already submitted the report, writ petition is dismissed. It is for the court to decide whether the disputed document was executed by the respondent or not. For that purpose court is competent to compare the signature by itself and also to rely on the report submitted by the experts. Parties are entitled to adduce evidence in support or against the reports. They are also entitled to examine the experts. Petitioner is also entitled to raise the objections raised in this petition before the trial court at the time of evidence. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-