IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2009 / 15TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26415 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.1060/2006 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- SARAMMA @ ELACHAR, AGED 79 YEARS, W/O.PULIKKOTTIL DAVIS, KAKKAD DESOM, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV SRI.P.P.HARRIS RESPONDENT: --------------- LEENA MATHEW, W/O.MEKKATTUKULAM SAJU, CHOWANNOOR DESOM & VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK. ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER SMT.P.JAYALAKSHMI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX(WPC 26415/09) PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.NO.1060/06. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.NO.1060/06. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN I.A.NO.4474/07 IN O.S.NO.1060/06. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN I.A.658/08 IN O.S.1060/06. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.6.2008 IN I.A.658/08 IN O.S.NO.1060/08. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 24.9.08 OF THE DIRECTOR, FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN I.A.3639/09 IN O.S.1060/06. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.26415 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 7th October, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To direct the court below to dispose of O.S.No.1060/2006 as expeditiously as possible that too within a time frame fixed by this Honourable Court.” 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1060 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur and the respondent is the defendant. Suit was one for declaring that a registered deed purported to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant is a sham document. The defendant resisted the suit claim by filing a written statement. Petitioner/plaintiff, an aged lady, moved an application for recording her evidence in advance and that being allowed, the court proceeded with recording her evidence. During her examination the defendant confronted her with some writings in a diary and also some documents, exhibited as B1 and B2. While the plaintiff admitted her signatures in B1 and B2, she disputed the writings in the diary. Defendant applied for sending over the documents to the forensic expert for scrutiny and opinion and that being allowed the documents W.P.C.No. 26415/09 - 2 - were sent over to the expert. A communication was forwarded from the Forensic Science Laboratory on 24.9.2008 to the court seeking for better particulars and documents bearing the signature of the plaintiff to have scientific examination and for tendering of opinion on the writings and signatures appearing in the documents. That communication was admittedly received in the court on 25.10.2008. Nearly one year thereafter, the defendant moved an application, copy of which is produced as P7, for taking appropriate steps for complying the directions in the communication received from the Forensic Science Laboratory. Though the consideration of P7 application was adjourned on the request of the plaintiff to file objections, no written objection was tendered. After hearing the counsel on both sides, the parties were directed to appear before court, presumably, for the purpose of taking the signature of the plaintiff in open court and sending them over to the forensic expert to comply with the request made. At that stage, the plaintiff has approached this court and filed the Writ Petition seeking the aforementioned reliefs invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. Learned counsel for the W.P.C.No. 26415/09 - 3 - petitioner submitted that the plaintiff is an old lady, now, aged 79 years and she is at present incapable of even subscribing her signature and make any writings. So much so, the direction issued by the court for her appearance to obtain her signatures to send them over to the expert, according to the counsel, would only delay the trial of the suit. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent pointing out that the affidavit sworn to by her before this court in the Writ Petition had been made at Ernakulam contended that there is no merit in the submissions made as to her inability to appear before the court. It is also submitted that the report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory was under the safe custody of the court and so much so, there was delay in applying for taking further steps by filing P7 application. Whatever that be, this was a case where the court below should have considered the age of the plaintiff before passing an order directing her appearance before the court to collect her signatures to send them over to the expert. She had moved an application to record her evidence in advance in view of her age and that was considered and allowed by the court. The defendant has raised the plea for sending over some documents to the expert only after confronting her with a diary during her W.P.C.No. 26415/09 - 4 - examination and not before. What was the relevance of the diary and whether the writings thereunder required to be send over for a proper adjudication of the disputes involved in the suit are all matters which should have been addressed by the court before passing any further order on the request made by the plaintiff in P7 application, especially when it is seen filed nearly one year after the receipt of the report from the forensic laboratory seeking better particulars. I direct the court below to examine the matter afresh and consider whether an enquiry on the writings by sending them over to the forensic expert is called for. The Writ Petition is disposed as indicated above. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE