IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2011 / 6TH ASHADHA 1933 OP(C).No. 1909 of 2011(O) AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.2.2011 IN I.A.NO.1459 OF 2010 IN O.S.NO.143 OF 2008 OF SUB COURT, CHERTHALA. PETITIONER ------------------- PROF.P.R.RAJENDRA BABU, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O.LATE RAMANATHAN, PUTHUVANAPPALLIL HOUSE, CMC-1, VELORGATTOM, CHERTHALA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU RESPONDENT: --------------- JOSEPH, CHERUPARAMBATHU VEETTIL, CHERTHALA VADAKKU VILLAGE, CMC-2, CHERTHALA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN- 688 524. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.143 OF 2008 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, CHERTHALA FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT DATED 18.6.2006 PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENT IN THE SUIT PURPORTED TO BE THE PROMISSORY NOTE. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.1459 OF 2010 IN O.S.NO.143 OF 2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN I.A.NO.1459 OF 2010 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, CHERTHALA. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.2.2011 IN I.A.NO.1459 OF 2010 IN O.S.NO.143 OF 2008 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, CHERTHALA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ O.P.(C). NO. 1909 OF 2011 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The defendant in O.S.No.143 of 2008, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cherthala, is aggrieved by the order dated 22.2.2011, by which the court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner to send the disputed promissory note for examination by an expert. 2. The suit was filed by the respondent for realisation of money on the basis of a promissory note allegedly executed by the defendant on 18.6.2006. The defendant contended that the promissory note was not executed by him and that he did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff. He contended that on 8.5.2003, a sum of Rupees Fifty thousand was borrowed from the wife of the plaintiff and at that time, a blank signed paper with a revenue stamp affixed therein was handed over to her. According to the defendant, that signed paper was used for fabricating a promissory note. O.P.(C) NO.1909 OF 2011 :: 2 :: 3. The defendant filed I.A.No.1459 of 2010 with a prayer that if the Court finds that an expert opinion is required, the document in question may be sent for the opinion of an expert. The court below dismissed the application holding that it is not necessary to get the opinion of an expert. The court below noticed that the case of the defendant is that the loan availed by him in 2003 from the wife of the plaintiff was discharged by the defendant. The court below also noticed that if the application is allowed, it would cause undue delay in the disposal of the suit. The suit is of the year 2008. The petitioner filed the application only in 2010. In the facts and circumstances, the court below was justified in dismissing the application. No interference is called for. The Original Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/