IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20824 of 2010(O) -------------------------- I.A.NO.394/2010 IN OS.216/2004 of SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOSE OOMMEN, POYYANIL NADUVILEMURIYIL, KOZHENCHERRY MURI, KOZHENCHERRY VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, JIJI JOSE, POYYANIL NADUVILEMURIYIL, KOZHENCHERRY MURI. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- MULAMOOTTIL FINANCE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR JACOB THOMAS, MULAMOOTTIL HOUSE, KOZHENCHERI MURI, KOZHENCHERI VILLAGE - 671 334. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.20824 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of July, 2010. JUDGMENT Writ Petition is in challenge of Ext.P1, order dated 02.03.2010 on I.A.No.394 of 2010 in O.S.No.216 of 2004 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Pathanamthitta. That is a suit filed by the respondent against petitioner who is represented in the suit by his power of attorney holder for realization of money. When the case was brought up for trial in the list, petitioner filed I.A.No.1088 of 2009 to send the disputed documents with his specimen signature for comparison to an expert. That application was allowed by the learned Sub Judge and petitioner was asked to appear in person in court and supply the specimen signature and handwriting on 02.02.2010. Counsel for petitioner requested further time and accordingly, time was extended by one month. Still, petitioner did not appear in person and as stated in paragraph No.2 of Ext.P1, order I.A.No.1088 of 2009 was dismissed. Later, counsel for the petitioner filed I.A.No.394 of 2010 supported by an affidavit of the counsel stating about difficulties that petitioner is experiencing to appear in court in person since he is working abroad and assuring that specimen signature/handwriting of petitioner could be taken in the presence of official of Consulate in the country where petitioner is working. That application was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge as per Ext.P1, order which is under challenge. Learned counsel contends that under Section 45 of the Evidence Act (for short, “the Act”), power is WP(C) No.20824/2010 2 conferred on the expert to examine admitted and disputed signature/handwriting. Section 73 of the Act confers power on the court itself for a comparison. According to the learned counsel, it is sufficient that specimen signatures/handwriting is obtained in the presence of official of Consulate and forwarded to the court below. 2. Be it an examination of disputed signature by the expert or comparison by court, comparison is with the admitted handwriting/signature of the person concerned. For that, court/expert must have the specimen handwriting/signature of the person who is said to have authored the disputed handwriting/signature. Learned Sub Judge has pointed out that the practice is to take specimen handwriting/signature in the presence of the Judge himself or in the presence of Chief Ministerial Officer as directed by the court. Such practice is followed to make note of the manner in which the person concerned gives his specimen handwriting/signature. If a peculiar manner is adopted by the person concerned to put his handwriting/signature court or the Chief Ministerial Officer as the case may be can make note of that. Otherwise the very purpose of comparison could be defeated by the person putting his specimen handwriting/signature in a different manner. In the circumstances, taking the WP(C) No.20824/2010 3 specimen handwriting/signature in the presence of official of the Consulate is not sufficient. As such I do not find reason to interfere with the order under challenge. Writ Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks