IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2009 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34803 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.108/2004 of SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.K.MOHANAN AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. KUNJU PILLAI, EETTIL VILAYIL VEEDU, THOOVAYOOR NORTH, MURI, EARATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), ADOOR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.34803 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S No.108 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta. Suit is for perpetual prohibitory injunction to restrain the State and the Public Officials from realising any amount from the petitioner/plaintiff and his properties towards arrears of abkari dues by resorting to Revenue Recovery proceedings or any other means. In the suit, alleging fraud in the execution of a mortgage deed, petitioner has sought for sending over that deed to a forensic expert to examine the signatures and thumb impressions endorsed on that deed with his specimen signatures and thumb impressions collected by the court. That application was allowed and the documents with the specimen signatures and thumb impressions as collected were sent over to the forensic expert. Pursuant to such examination, Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 reports were received from the forensic laboratory. Petitioner thereafter moved an application that there was W.P.(C).No.34803 OF 2009 Page numbers omission on the part of the court in sending over his specimen thumb impressions collected while forwarding the deed and also the specimen signatures to the expert, and so much so, once again the deed and the specimen thumb impressions have to be forwarded to the expert. The learned Munsiff declined that request vide Ext.P6 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P6 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The learned Government Pleader has taken notice for the respondents. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. Ext.P1 is the copy of the plaint. It is seen, the petitioner/plaintiff has sought for a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction to restrain the State from proceeding against him under the Revenue Recovery Act towards realisation of alleged abkari dues from him. Suit is valued for a sum of Rs.1,70,1000/- and it is instituted after getting permission to sue as an indigent person. Whatever be the W.P.(C).No.34803 OF 2009 Page numbers case canvassed by the petitioner with respect to the execution of the mortgage deed, on the allegations raised in the plaint, his entitlement for decree of injunction rest on the question whether he is a defaulter for the abkari dues or not. Unless the petitioner/plaintiff shows that he is not a defaulter, whatever be the finding entered on the mortgage deed that will not in any way assist him in getting a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction as sought for in the suit. So much so, an enquiry with reference to the mortgage deed, which is disputed by the petitioner has least significance in the decision to be rendered in the suit. In that view of the matter, I find no interference with Ext.P6 order is called for. Writ petition lacks merit and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv