IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 30903 of 2008(D) --------------------------------------- OS.NO.77/2006 OF SUB COURT, PALA .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- DEVASSIA EAPPEN, KAPPIL NADUCKUTHAZHE, LALAM KARA AND VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.MATHEW JOHN (K), MR.AJEESH K.SASI. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- P.T.THOMAS, PLATHOTTATHIL HOUSE, ANTHINADU KARA, LALAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. BY ADV. MR.P.C.HARIDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.30903/2008-D: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PLAINT DT. 08/06/2006. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DTD. 20/10/2006. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE CHEQUE DT. 20/03/2006. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION DTD. 05/06/2007. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 04/07/2007. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.D 26/09/2007 IN W.P.(C).NO.24171/2007. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 07/07/2008. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION DTD.07/08/2008 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION DTD. 06/08/2008 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DT. 25/08/2008. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD. 25/08/2008. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 04/09/2008 IN I.A. NO. 1160/2008 IN O.S. NO. 77/2006. EXT.P.13: DO. DO. IN I.A. NO. 1153/2008 IN O.S. NO. 77/2006, SUB COURT, PALA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.30903 of 2008 - D --------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: “i) To call for the records leading up to Ext.P13 and set aside Exts.P12 and P13. ii) To allow the prayers of the petitioner made in Exts.P8 and P9.” 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.NO.77/2006 on the file of the Sub court, Pala. Respondent in this petition filed the above suit for money based on a promissory note. A sum of Rs.5 Lakhs was given as a loan to the defendant by way of a cheque and towards consideration of thereof, he executed a promissory note, is the case of the plaintiff. The defendant resisted the suit in which among other contentions he contended that the promissory note was forged on blank signed papers which had been collected from him by another person and impersonation of the cheque was also made in the instrument. In short, he disputed the liability under the suit claim denying of any W.P.(C).No.30903 of 2008 - D 2 transaction or execution of any document in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant had also moved an application for forensic examination of the cheque which then was summoned and produced before the court to give an expert opinion as to the authenticity of the signature appearing on the reverse side of the cheque. On the basis of the directions issued by this Court in an earlier writ petition, numbered as W.P.(C).No.2417/2007, the court below forwarded the cheque for such forensic examination to an expert. After such examination, the expert forwarded a report to the court in which he stated that it is difficult to form a definite opinion as there are similarities as well as dissimilarities in the signatures. Ext.P7 is the copy of that report. In the light of Ext.P7, the defendant again moved an application before the court for sending the cheque and the documents bearing his signatures to another expert to have a definite opinion on the disputed question whether the cheque had been subscribed by him or another person by impersonation. The plaintiff filed written objection to that application. The learned sub Judge after hearing both sides declined the request of the defendant to send W.P.(C).No.30903 of 2008 - D 3 the document again to another expert for examination. Ext.P12 is the copy of that order. Impeaching the correctness and propriety of that order, the defendant has filed this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. 4. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances involved, I find no impropriety or illegality in Ext.P12 order passed by the learned Sub Judge. The learned Sub Judge has noted that the admissibility of the report of the handwriting expert can be considered only after taking evidence in the case. It is further clarified that the defendant can adduce evidence during the trial of the suit that the report of the handwriting expert is inadmissible. The court has not formed any opinion on the report filed by the expert since such opinion can be formed only after the parties are given opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective case. At a later stage, after taking evidence, if it is found that the report is to be set aside and there is need to W.P.(C).No.30903 of 2008 - D 4 send it to again for forensic examination to another expert, it is open to the court to do so and Ext.P12 order will not be a bar for taking proceedings in that line. However, that course emerges if only that is necessary for a fair adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit. Whatever that be, at this stage, challenge against Ext.P12 order will not lie invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court as it relates to the evidentiary value of a document to be considered and decided by the court below. Subject to the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-