IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 9272 of 2010(O) ----------------------------------- OS.890/2008 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MAJO T.J.,S/O.THONATH JOHNY, RESIDING AT OPOSITE KANDASSAMKADAVU TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, KANDASSAMKADAVU DESOM, KARAMUCK VILLAGE,THRISSUR. BY ADVS.MR.P.B.KRISHNAN MR.R.SURAJ KUMAR SMT.GEETHA P.MENON MR.P.M.NEELAKANDAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. JOMOL JOHN, W/O.EDAKKALATHUR VEETTIL AJAY LAZAR & D/O.THONATH JOHNY, KARAMUCK VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK AND DISTRICT KOCHI- 682309. 2. P.R.MARTHA, W/O.THONATH JOHNY, RESIDING IN FRANCIS LINE, KANDASSAMKADAVU DESOM, KARAMUCK VILALGE, THRISSUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. 3. RIJO T.J. D/O. THONATH JOHNY & W/O.KANDAMKULATHIVEETTIL SIBIN K, THOMAS, (VII/22A) KATTUR P.O., ILLIKKAD DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- WP(C) No.9272 of 2010-O ------------------------------------- Dated 19th March 2010 Judgment In this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails Ext.P6 order passed by the Second Additional Sub Court, Thrissur in IA No.9554/09 in OS No.890/08. 2. The petitioner is the second respondent in the above said IA, which was filed by the plaintiff in the suit, seeking to have the signatures appearing on some documents sent for expert opinion, after comparison. The documents, which are proposed to be sent for comparison, are Document No.173 of 2007 and a partnership deed. 3. The suit is one for partition. The defendants resisted the suit, pointing out that there is a will executed and registered by the deceased person. They allege that the will has been acted upon, WPC 9272/10 2 4. Whatever that be, it is unnecessary to go further into the details of the case, in the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed in this Petition. The respective counsel took notice on behalf of the respondents. Going by the impugned order, it is clearly unsustainable in law. Moreover, the Court below has not specified as to which are the documents, the photographs of which are to be taken. No details of the documents are stated in the order. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order Ext.P6 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made herein above. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 9272/10 3 WPC 9272/10 4