IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27002 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- OS.292/2008 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- VASANTHA LAKSHMI C, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O. P.T. NARAYANAN WARRIER, RESIDING AT AISWARYA, PALLIKKUNNU AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR -670 004. BY ADV. MR.P.U.SHAILAJAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. VINOD KUMAR M.C. AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. BHASKARAN, SAMPTHRIPTHI, KANNUR-4. 2. P.T. NARAYANAN WARRIER, AGED 81 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN WARRIER, RESIDING AT VASANTHA VIHAR, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DIST. 3. K. SREEKUMAR, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. VASUDEVAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT KUNDANAN, KANNUR-4. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.27002 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) A writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order and call for the records from the Additional Munsiff Court, Kannur leading to Ext.P5 order. ii) A writ of certiorari or other writ or order and quash the original of Ext.P5 passed by the Additional Munsiff Court, Kannur. iii) To issue such other writs, orders or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S No.292 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kannur, and the first respondent is the W.P.(C).No.27002 OF 2009 Page numbers plaintiff, and, second and third respondents, codefendants with the petitioner. First respondent filed the suit contending that a firm was constituted by all of the parties for conducting business and each of them had invested Rs.3,00,000/- as capital to the business. Further case of the plaintiff was that he invested one lakh more and the first defendant had returned that sum later stating the same to be the profit of the business. In the suit, plaintiff claimed for a decree of mandatory injunction for delivery of the accounts and for recovery of Rs.80,000/-, the estimated sum of his profit. Suit claim was resisted by the defendants contending that there was no partnership business between the parties. They also contended that there were only some talks for constituting a firm in which the plaintiff alone had signed in a deed prepared, but not the other defendants. Plaintiff produced a photocopy alleged to have been handed over to the first W.P.(C).No.27002 OF 2009 Page numbers defendant bearing the signatures subscribed by the defendants. Plaintiff also moved an application for sending over that document with admitted documents containing the signatures of the defendants for examination by a forensic expert. That application was resisted by the first and second defendants by filing objections. The court below after hearing both sides, noticing that in the photocopy signatures as such had been subscribed found that the examination of the document by a forensic expert as sought for by the plaintiff was necessary to advance the ends of justice. Ext.P5 order was passed allowing the application of the plaintiff negativing the objections raised by the first and second defendants. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P5 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C).No.27002 OF 2009 Page numbers 3. 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 it is dispensed with. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the maintainability of the suit itself to impeach the correctness of Ext.P5 order passed by the court below. I find the question as to whether the suit is maintainable or not has to be canvassed before the trial court and in the limited scope of exercising visitorial jurisdiction, it is not proper and appropriate for this court to examine that question especially when the challenge is confined to Ext.P5 order. So far as the challenge raised against Ext.P5 order, on the facts and circumstances presented, I find no interference is called for as that order does not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity or patent illegality. The order passed by the court below directing for W.P.(C).No.27002 OF 2009 Page numbers sending the photocopy of the deed produced by the plaintiff to the forensic expert with other admitted documents is only proper, valid and correct. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv