IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24218 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 858/08 IN OS.551/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MURALI ACHARI, S/O.CHELLAPPAN ACHARI, CHAKKALAYIL, PADA-SOUTH MURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- KRISHNAN UNNITHAN, ARADAHANA,S.V.MARKET P.O., AYANIVELIKULANGARA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.24218 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of August 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P5 and set aside Ext.P5 order of the Munsiff Court, Karunagappally in I.A No.858/2008 in O.S No.551/2006. ii) To direct the Munsiff Court, Karunagappally to set aside Ext.P5 order and allow Ext.P3 application in I.A No.858/2008 in O.S No.551/2006. W.P.(C).No.24218 OF 2009 Page numbers iii) To issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S No.551 of 2006 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Karunagappally. Suit is for money based on a Promissory Note, and the respondent is the plaintiff. Resisting the suit claim, the defendant, in the written statement contented that the Promissory Note on which the suit claim was based was not executed by him. The defendant moved an application for sending over the Promissory Note for forensic examination by an expert. Ext.P3 is the copy of that application. The application was objected to by the plaintiff filing Ext.P4 objections. The learned Munsiff after considering Ext.P3 application in the light of the objection raised by the plaintiff and after comparing the W.P.(C).No.24218 OF 2009 Page numbers signature seen in the Promissory Note with those subscribed by the defendant in the vakalath and acknowledgment card etc. arrived at a conclusion that no forensic examination of the Promissory Note is warranted. The learned Munsiff noticed that, there is no noticeable variation in the signatures, and that, the signature of the defendant in the acknowledgment card and that of the Promissory Note look alike. Ext.P5 is the copy of that order. 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. 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 respondent is necessary and it is dispensed with. The learned W.P.(C).No.24218 OF 2009 Page numbers counsel relying on “Jyothis Kuries & Loans v George Joss” (2003(3) KLT 1157) states that it is hazardous for the court to form an opinion over a disputed document on comparison of the signatures with other documents since the court is not an expert in forming any opinion on such comparison. I find no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned Munsiff in passing Ext.P5 order. Even if the document is sent over to an expert, the evidence given by the expert would constitute only an opinion as envisaged under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. The court is not bound to accept the expert evidence, but may consider its merit and value after examining the opinion so furnished. The only caution that is to be taken by the court while comparison of a disputed document with other documents is that the finding to be arrived at should not be based on such comparison alone. It is open to the court to W.P.(C).No.24218 OF 2009 Page numbers compare disputed signature in a document with other admitted signatures in the documents and form an opinion of its own. The court is not bound to send over the disputed document for comparison with an admitted document to an expert and then accept the opinion given by that expert implicitly. There is no legal bar in the Judge forming opinion on his own eyes, but he should be hesitant to pass his findings on that comparison alone. The finding should be based on other material evidence tendered in the case. The opinion formed by the court, on comparison, is only a step in aid to form the conclusion, but cannot be the decisive factor . I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the counsel that the court is bound to send over the document to an expert when a request is sought by the defendant on the plea that he had disputed a signature in the document on which suit claim is based. Whatever that be the execution of W.P.(C).No.24218 OF 2009 Page numbers Promissory Note by the defendant as alleged is to be established by the plaintiff and then alone relief claimed in the suit can be granted. Because the signature in the document is disputed by the defendant the court is not bound to send that document at his request to an expert. I make it clear that none of the observations made in the judgment shall have any reflection or bearing in the disposal of the suit on merit which has to be done on the materials to be tendered by both sides in support of their respective case. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv