IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 929 of 2009(I) ------------------------------- OS.243/2006 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA ......................................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. RAJAGOPAL, S/O. KRISHNAKUMARI, MENAMCHERRIL GOKULAM HOUSE, KAPPIL SOUTH MURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM. 2. KRISHNAKUMARI, MENAMCHERIL GOKULAM HOUSE, KAPPIL SOUTH MURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM. 3. BALAGOPAL, S/O. KRISHNAKUMARI, MENAMCHERIL GOKULAM HOUSE, KAPPIL SOUTH MURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. VENUGOPAL, S/O. KRISHNAKUMARI, MENAMCHERRIL GOKULAM HOUSE, KAPPIL SOUTH MURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM. 2. SUBAIR, S/O. IBRAHIMKUTTY, KOOTAKUZHIL, ERUVA MURI, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S R2 BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 929/2009-I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT. 24-5-2006. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT. 24-5-2006. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.243/2006 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY 1ST DEFENDANT IN OS.243/06. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF ADDL.4TH DEFENDANT IN OS.243/06. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY R2 FOR COMPARING THE SIGNATURES OF R1 EXT.P7 COPY OF THE CHEQUE CONTAINING SIGNATURE OF R1. EXT.P8 COPY OF THE VAKALATH OF R1. EXT.P9 COPY OF THE KAICHEET BY WHICH AMIN HAD HANDED OVER THE VACANT POSSESSION TO R1. EXT.P10 COPY OF THE SALE DEED WHICH CONTAINS THE SIGNATURE OF R1. EXT.P11 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY R1 AGAINST R2 BEFORE KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION. EXT.P12 COPY OF IA.NO.618/08 IN O.S.NO.243/06. EXT.P13 COPY OF THE ORDER DT.28-10-08 OF THE COURT OF SUB JUDGE, MAVELIKKARA IN IA.618/08 IN O.S.243/06. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL / TRUE COPY / PA TO JUDGE. dkr S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 929 OF 2009 I ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition was filed seeking the following reliefs: “(i) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P13 and quash Ext.P13. (ii) to pass an order directing the court below to compare the signatures of the 1 st respondent in the agreements with the admitted signatures in the case file, his authentic signature in other documents and his signature taken in court and then if the court feels so it may send the signatures for comparison by scientific method.” 2. Petitioners are defendants 2 to 4 in OS.No.243/06 on the file of the Sub Court, Mavelikkara. The 1st respondent is the 1st defendant and 2nd respondent, the plaintiff in that suit. Suit is one for specific performance of an agreement of sale purported to have been executed by the 1st defendant. Petitioners 1 and 3 herein are brothers of the 1st respondent, and the 2nd petitioner, their mother. Signature in the agreement of sale on which the suit claim was based is disputed by the 1st defendant. That being so, WPC.929/09 : 2 : the plaintiff moved an application to direct the presence of the 1st defendant before the court to take his signature and also writing his name, in the presence of the court, to have a comparison of his signature with those appearing in the agreement of sale and also on the reverse side of a cheque leaf by which the plaintiff/2nd respondent advanced cash towards the agreement of sale. Ext.P6 is the copy of that application. None of the defendants has any objection to the request so made by the plaintiff/2nd respondent. The learned Sub Judge, after hearing both sides, was not inclined to accept the request of the plaintiff to take the signature and writings of the 1st defendant in the open court as desired. Expressing a view that the purpose would be served if the cheque, which was encashed by the 1st defendant, was collected from the bank and sent over to the forensic science laboratory to have a comparison of those two documents whether the signature in both have been subscribed by the same person, Ext.P6 application was disposed by Ext.P13 order dated 28.10.2008. The present petitioners, defendants 2 to 4 in the suit, moved another application a few months later on 3.12.2008 requesting for WPC.929/09 : 3 : collecting the signature of the 1st defendant after summoning him before the court and forwarding it with the two documents, the cheque and also the agreement of sale, which have already been ordered under Ext.P13 order, for scientific examination by the forensic expert. Ext.P12 is the copy of that petition. The petitioners have approached this court seeking for writ, direction or orders to quash Ext.P12 order and also to issue directions to the court below as requested for in their Ext.P12 application. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/plaintiff submitted that pursuant to Ext.P13 order, the records have been sent over to the forensic science expert and the court is awaiting the report. The records are not sent over is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Whatever that be, after hearing the counsel on both sides at length and also taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, it is apparent that the filing of the petition is nothing but a dilatory tactic to prolong and protract a litigation. These petitioners, who had no objection in allowing Ext.P6 application moved by the 2nd respondent/ plaintiff, after Ext.P13 order was WPC.929/09 : 4 : passed by the court, that is three months later, moved Ext.P12 application and thereafter approached this court for quashing Ext.P13 order. It is not evident from the petition filed before this court whether any attempt had been made by the petitioners to invite the attention of the court below on Ext.P12 application before filing of this petition. That is also a circumstance indicating that the petition has been filed without any bona fides. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and it is dismissed. Sd/- (S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. to Judge