IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2010 / 15TH ASWINA 1932 OP(C).No. 227 of 2010(O) ------------------- OS.3887/2003 of III ADDL. M.C.,THRISSUR ................ PETITIONER : -------------------- NARAYANAN, AGED 76, S/O.VELLANKAL SANKARAN, CHELLAYIL DESOM, THEKUMKARA VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE POOMALA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, POOMALA DESOM, KILLANNUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-680581. 2. SURESH, S/O.LARANATH JAGADEESH, ATHANI DESOM, MINALUR VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK 680771. 3. SREEDHARAN VAIDHYAR, S/O.IYYANIKATTIL KANDASSAN VYDIAR, MUNDATHIKODE VILLAGE DESOM, TALAPPILLY TALUK-680595. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.227 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 07th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Plaintiff in O.S. No.3887 of 2003 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff-III, Thrissur is the petitioner before me. He filed the suit for prohibitory injunction to restrain defendants- respondents from conducting general body meeting of Poomala Educational Trust (for short, “the Trust”) on 19.12.2003 or on any other date without issuing notice to the members as provided in the bye-law. Later plaint was amended to state that decision taken by the Trust on 19.12.2003 including the decision taken to amend the bye-law are illegal and unsustainable. Contesting respondents filed written statement contending that petitioner had attended the general body meeting on 19.12.2003 and that meeting decided by resolution No.3 to remove petitioner from the Trust. Accordingly petitioner ceased to be a member of the Trust. Minutes Books of the meeting held on 19.12.2003 was produced in court. Petitioner, contending that there is substantial interpolation and forgery in the Minutes Book filed Ext.P3, O.P(C) No.227 of 2010 -: 2 :- application to send the Minutes Book to the Forensic Science Laboratory (for short, “the FSL”) for examination of the disputed signatures of the petitioner appearing in page Nos.5, 9, 15, 18, 21 and 25 to 27. That application was opposed by the respondents. Learned Munsiff dismissed Ext.P3, application for two reasons; firstly, Ext.P3 is highly belated and secondly; it is not necessary to bring negative evidence. Learned counsel contends that if his signatures are examined by the FSL it is possible for him to prove that he has not taken part in the general body meeting on 19.12.2003 and hence contentions raised by respondents are not correct. It is also the case of learned counsel for petitioners that if petitioner is able to show that the Minutes Book is substantially interpolated that document itself could not be relied. 2. Dispute is regarding (disputed) signatures of petitioner in the Minutes Book and the contention is that allegation of respondents that it was in the presence of petitioner in the meeting held on 191.12.2003 that he was expelled from the Trust. Contesting respondents opposed the prayer to send the disputed signatures in the Minutes Book to the FSL for expert opinion and learned Munsiff accepting the objection dismissed the application. Since respondents have opposed the O.P(C) No.227 of 2010 -: 3 :- request of petitioner successfully they cannot turn round and plead at a later point of time that failure to send the disputed signatures to the Expert for opinion is fatal to the case pleaded by the petitioner. It is open to the petitioner to prove by other modes that he has not put the disputed signatures in the Minutes Book. Court may also have to consider what effect it would make assuming that expulsion was in the absence of petitioner. In the above circumstances I do not find reason to interfere with the impugned order. Original Petition is closed with the observation made above as to the burden of petitioner to get the disputed signatures examined by the Expert. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv