IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 3658 of 2010(O) ------------------------------------- [OS.NO.237/2009 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, VAIKOM] .................... PETITIONER/IST DEFENDANT: -------------------------------------------- K.S.SANKER, AGED 84 YEARS, S/O.SANKARA PILLAI, PANAGATTU HOUSE, KAPIKKAD KARA, MUTTUCHIRA VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.T.K.PANKAJAKSHAN PILLAI, MR.SAJI PANKAJAKSHAN, MR.P.R.PADMANABHAN NAIR. RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: -------------------------------------- P.S.SANKARJI, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.SANKAR, PANAGATTU HOUSE, KAPIKKAD KARA, MUTTUCHIRA VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.ROY CHACKO. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.3658/2010-O: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1.A: COPY OF THE PLAINT DTD. 06/10/2009 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, VAIKOM. EXT.P.1.B: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 28/05/2006 IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT. EXT.P.1.C: COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DTD. 14/05/2002 SAID TO HAVE BEEN EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P.2.A: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DTD. 10/11/2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE SECOND DEFENDANT, WIFE. EXT.P.2.B: COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND DEFENDANT ON 12/10/2006. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PETITION I.A. NO. 98/2010 DTD. 14/01/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S. NO. 237/2009 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, VAIKOM. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 98/2010 DTD. 19/01/2010 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, VAIKOM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- WP(C) No.3658 of 2010-O ------------------------------------- Dated 31st March 2010 Judgment The petitioner has approached this Court, challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the Munsiff's Court, Vaikom in IA No.98/10 in OS No.237/09. 2. The respondent filed OS No.237/09 before the Munsiff's Court, Vaikom on the basis of an agreement for sale, said to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent. Ext.P1(a) is the copy of the plaint in the suit and Ext.P1(b) is the copy of the agreement. The power of attorney said to have been executed by the petitioner is produced as Ext.P1(c). The petitioner denied of having executed the agreement and submitted that it is a forged document. The copy of the written statement filed by him in the suit is produced as Ext.P2(a). He filed IA No.98/10 in the suit, praying to send the agreement for expert opinion. The Court below WPC 3658/10 2 dismissed the said IA as per Ext.P4 order. The said order is assailed in this Writ Petition. 3, According to the petitioner, the Court below has not taken into consideration, the relevant aspects and has passed an illegal order. There is no justification for the Court below to have dismissed the IA filed by him. The definite contention of the petitioner is that the agreement was a forged document and so, the agreement should have necessarily been sent for expert opinion. 4. Going through the order passed by the Court below, it has not considered the relevant aspects and the claim put forward by the petitioner. The reasons given for declining the prayer made by the petitioner do not appear to be justified in law. The Court below should reconsider the application filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the Court below is directed to reconsider IA No.98/10 in OS No.237/09 and pass orders thereon in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to both parties, WPC 3658/10 3 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 3658/10 4