IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10763 of 2008(R) -------------------------- OS.82/2002 of PRL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ B.LEELAMMA, D/O. LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, T.C.28/608, LAKSHMI BHAVAN, VENROSE JN., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENT: ------------- B.JAYAKUMAR, S/O. BALAKRISHNA REDDIAR, T.C.26/447, VENROSE JN., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 10763 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Principal Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, in IA 1626/08 in OS 82/02. 2. The defendant moved an application for comparison of handwriting in the cheque on account of the evidence tendered in the case by the plaintiff that the body of the cheque has been filled by the defendant. It has to be stated that the defendant in the written statement has admitted her signature in the cheque. Now the contention of the defendant is that using a blank signed cheque an instrument has been created and a suit has been filed. 3. It is true that under Sec.20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the person who issues the cheque or holder is entitled to fill up the cheque. Now here it is a situation where the plaintiff in his evidence has asserted that the cheque has been filled up by the defendant in the case. The defendant contends that the cheque has never been filled up by her and therefore if there is a comparison of the handwriting of the defendant with the writing in the WPC NO 10763/08 2 cheque, it will reveal that it is not written by her, which may rise a situation under Sec. 87 of the Act, i.e. Material alteration of an instrument after it has been signed. 4. It is true that there is some delay. But it cannot also be said that there is delay for the reason that the averment that the defendant has filled up the cheque came to the limelight only when the plaintiff was examined in the court. 5. Therefore, I set aside the order of the court below and direct the court below to consider it afresh, after hearing both sides, since I am disposing of the matter in the admission stage itself. Needless to say, since a considered decision is to be taken in this matter, the trial court shall not proceed with further trial or pronouncement of the judgment in the case. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 10763/08 3 WPC NO 10763/08 4 WPC NO 10763/08 5