IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 5053 of 2008(B) ------------------------------------- O.P (ELECTION) NO.2/2005 OF ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- SOBHANA KUMARI, D/O. KRISHNAN KUTTY, AGED 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUNDELATTU CHIRA, CHUNGAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- SHOLLY SIDHAKUMAR, W/O.SIDHAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT MANCHADI PARAMBU, CHUNGAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI. K.S. HARIHARAPUTHRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 5053 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Addl. Munsiff, Alappuzha in I.A.183/08 whereby the Court has permitted that the petitioner shall take steps for sending the documents for expert's opinion. A perusal of the order would reveal that when witnesses were examined they were not confronted with the alleged signature of their's and therefore there was no specific opportunity for them to answer the same. The Court below found that since the witnesses had stated that they have not come to that ward at all, there is no necessity to again make an enquiry into the matter. I am afraid that without resorting to the proper legal formalities it may not be correct especially in an election petition which deal with the fate of the candidate. Therefore I direct the respondent in the writ petition to summon those witnesses whose signatures are prayed to be compared, put W.P.C 5053 OF 2008 -:2:- relevant question showing the signature and if there is denial then the Court can send it for comparison with the admitted signature for the proper determination of the matter. I am conscious that it may cause delay but it is necessary. The Court below shall also try to summon the witnesses at the earliest and thereafter pass appropriate orders for sending the disputed signatures for comparison. I make it clear that the finding of the Court that the matter requires comparison is not interfered with and I fix the time frame as one month for recalling and examination. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-