IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP(C).No. 3616 of 2011(O) --------------------------------------- I.A.1973/2011 IN OS.104/2011 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- JOY, S/O.AUGUSTINE, AGED 55 YEARS, MANDOTHU HOUSE, ALUVA KARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- VARGHESE, S/O.CHACKO, AGED 85 YEARS, MUKKADAYIL HOUSE, PALATHURUTHU DESOM, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, 682 035. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs OP(C).No. 3616 of 2011(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.104/11 OF SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR DT. 10.02.2011. EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DT. 24.5.2011. EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE IA.1973/11 IN 104/11 DT. 22.7.2011. EXT.P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IA.1973/11 IN OS NO.104/11 SUB COURT NORTH PARAVUR DT. 6.9.2011. EXT.P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE IA.1972/11 IN O.S.104/11 DT.22.07.2011 EXT.P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN IA.1972/11 IN O.S.104/11 DT. 5.9.11 EXT.P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA.1973/11 IN OS.104/11 IN THE SUB COURT , NORTH PARAVUR DT. 29.9.2011. EXT.P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA.1972/11 IN OS.104/11 IN SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR DT. 29.9.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.3616 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT The defendant in O.S.No.104 of 2011 of the court of learned Principal Sub Judge, North Paravur is the petitioner before me. That is a suit filed by the respondent for a declaration that sale deed No.2461 of 2006 purportedly executed by him is not binding on him as it is a forged document. Petitioner resisted the suit by Ext.P2, written statement. Respondent filed Ext.P3, application – I.A.No.1973 of 2011 to collect his thump impression and forward the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory (for short, the FSL”) for comparison with the thump impression in the sale deed No.2461 of 2006. That application was resisted by petitioner by Ext.P4, objection. Respondent also filed Ext.P5, application – I.A.No.1972 of 2011 to direct petitioner produce the original of document No.2461 of 2006. To that application, petitioner preferred Ext.P6, objection that he is not in possession the original of sale deed No.2461 of 2006 as it has been pledged with the State Bank of Travancore in connection with a loan. Learned Sub Judge allowed Ext.P3, application by Ext.P7, order dated 29.09.2011. On the same day learned Sub Judge passed Ext.P8, order to issue notice to the branch of the State Bank of Travancore concerned directing it to produce the original of document No.2461 of 2006 to be forwarded to the FSL for opinion with a rider that after such examination the said document will be returned to the bank. Petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P7 and P8, orders. OP(C)No.3616/2011 2 2. It is submitted that there are other modes of proving the allegation of respondent that he has not executed the disputed document. It is also contended that the document in question was registered before the Sub Registrar concerned and hence respondent could not have been allowed to take the document for expert opinion. 3. The report of the expert is also a form of adducing evidence though, essential it is in the nature of opinion evidence. Such report is also relevant in deciding the issue. There is no reason why in the light of the contention raised by petitioner I should interfere with Ext.P7, order allowing the respondent to compare the thump impression in the original of document No.2461 of 2006. 4. So far as Ext.P8, order is concerned, petitioner pleaded that he is not in possession of the original of sale deed No.2461 of 2006 as it has been pledged with the State Bank of Travancore in connection with a loan. Hence learned Sub Judge by Ext.P8, order directed to issue summons to the bank concerned to produce the original of document No.2461 of 2006 with a rider that after comparison, the said document will be returned to the said bank. I do not find reason to interfere with Ext.P8, order as well. OP(C)No.3616/2011 3 5. It is stated that petitioner and respondent are closely related and hence, if the matter is sent to the Adalath the whole issue could be settled. That is a matter which the petitioner can urge before the learned Sub Judge. With the above observation, this Original Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks