IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931 CRP.No. 377 of 2003(I) -------------------------------- IA.NO.1568/2001 IN OS.NO.114/1997 OF MUSNIFF COURT,ADOOR. .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------------------ GEORGE K.MATHEW, KOMALASSERIL VEEDU, BHARANICKAVU, KATTANAM. BY ADV. SMT.S.A.SHERLY. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: -------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS THOMAS, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PARAKODU, ADOOR. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= C.R.P.377 of 2003 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No.114 of 1997 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Adoor. The suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for a permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioner from entering the plaint schedule property and also for restraining him from executing any document in respect of that property alleging that the revision petitioner has sold the property by sale deed No.74/96 dated January 17, 1996. On enquiry, the revision petitioner came to know that respondent/plaintiff has forged his signature and executed the sale deed No.74 of 1996. The revision petitioner thereafter filed O.S. No.181 of 1997 for declaration of his title over the property and also for a declaration that the sale deed is void. In O.S. No.114 of 1997 the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.1568 of 2001 to send the above said sale deed along with his admitted handwriting to Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram for opinion. In the said I.A. the trial court directed the revision petitioner to produce the S.S.L.C. book to know his alleged signature during the relevant CRP 377/03 2 period. As the same was not produced the trial court dismissed the petition by impugned order dated September 12, 2002. Hence, this revision petition is filed challenging the said order. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the specimen handwriting and signature were taken by the trial court and therefore specimen signatures and disputed document may be forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram for their opinion and that the S.S.L.C. book of the petitioner is not available. I find his request reasonable. The learned Munsiff has already obtained specimen handwriting, signature and thump impression of the revision petitioner. Therefore, I feel that the above specimen handwriting and the disputed document can be sent to the handwriting expert for opinion. That being so, the impugned order of the lower court in I.A.No.1568 of 2001 has to be set aside. 3. Therefore, the impugned order of the lower court in I.A.No.1568/2001 is set aside and the said I.A. is allowed. The trial court is directed to send the specimen handwriting and thump impression along with the disputed document to Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram for the opinion of the handwriting expert. The suit is of the year 1997. Therefore, the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit CRP 377/03 3 within six months from the date of receipt of the opinion of handwriting expert. With the above direction, the C.R.P. is disposed of . P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mn CRP 377/03 4 P.Q. BARKATH ALI, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= C.R.P.377 of 2003 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- O R D E R 22nd day of October, 2009