IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5149 of 2010(O) ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.1175/2010 IN OS.1027/2006 of II ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,TRIVANDRUM. .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ G.P.AJITHKUMAR, S/O. P.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, 'SARGAM', V.P.507, KODUNGANOOR.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O. KRISHNA PILLAI, 'SAKTHI', S.P.6/745, ANIYOOR, CHEMPAZHUNTHY.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- WP(C) No.5149 of 2010-O ------------------------------------- Dated 17th February 2010 Judgment In this Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails Ext.P5 order passed by the Second Additional Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram in IA No.1175/10 in OS No.1027/06. 2. The petitioner is the defendant in the above suit. The suit was one for declaration of title over the plaint schedule property and for consequential reliefs. The defendant, who is the petitioner herein, also claimed title over the very same property and he filed a written statement in the suit along with a counter-claim on the basis of Sale Deed No.1430 of 2004 dt.7.4.2004 of the Sub Registrar's Office, Pothencode, which is produced as Ext.P1. It is stated in the petition that on receipt of summons in the case along with the copy of the plaint, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 complaint before the SI of Police, Sreekariyam Police Station and also before the Inspector General of Registration. WPC 5149/10 2 3. The petitioner asserts that he is a bona fide purchaser and he has not executed any document in relation to the plaint schedule property. According to him, the documents produced by the respondent are forged documents. Suffice to say that the petitioner moved a petition before the Court below as IA No.1175/10, seeking to have the disputed document sent for expert opinion to the Forensic Science Lab, Thiruvananthapuram. He also wanted to send the signature and thumb impression in the documents for expert opinion. The Court below considered the petition in detail and found that the petition was nothing but a method adopted to have the suit adjourned and accordingly, dismissed the petition. 4. According to the petitioner, it is absolutely necessary that expert opinion is obtained with reference to the disputed documents so as to enable him to establish the counter claim raised by him in the suit. He submits, the Court below was not justified in dismissing the petition filed by him. 5. The contentions raised by the petitioner are without merits whatsoever. The Trial Court has observed that there were ample opportunities for the petitioner to seek orders to forward the document to the Forensic Science Lab before WPC 5149/10 3 posting the case for trial. When there were only three days left for the listing of the suit, the present petition was filed. So, it was held that the petition was highly belated and filed only to delay the disposal of the suit and counter claim. I find no legal infirmity in the order passed by the Court below. So, this Petition is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 5149/10 4