IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23901 of 2009(R) -------------------------- OP.288/2006 of FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER: --------------- R.TRIVENI,AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.V.RAGUPATHI,AND D/O.KESHAVA ADIGA,RESIDING AT H.NO:K.M.C.27/426,SVT ROAD,NEAR TOWN BANK, KASABA VILLAGE,KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO SMT.N.SHOBHA RESPONDENT: --------------- V.RAGUPATHY,AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.VENKATRAMANI,BUSINESSMAN,RESIDING AT HOUSEN NO 55,MANIAM KALIPPA STREET,SAIBABA COLONY,K.K.PUDUR, COIMBATORE-641038,TAMIL NADU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------ W.P(C) No.23901 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Petitioner is the respondent in O.P.No.288 of 2006 pending before the Family Court, Kasaragod. That O.P is filed by the respondent herein. The respondent along with O.P.No.288 of 2006 has filed an affidavit. The respondent stands by the affidavit, obviously. After appearance of the petitioner, the petitioner appears to entertain some doubts as to whether the signature in the affidavit is that of the respondent or not. She wanted the signature to be sent to the expert. That petition is still pending. While that is pending, the petitioner herein filed Ext.P3 application calling upon the respondent to answer interrogatories. The precise question to be answered is whether the respondent admits the signature in the affidavit. That application was opposed. The court below by Ext.P5 order rejected the petition under Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. As an appeal is not maintainable under Section 19, he has come to this Court with this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P(C) No.23901 of 2009 2 2. What is the grievance of the petitioner ? Admittedly the respondent herein has never disowned the affidavit filed by him. The petitioner appears to entertain doubts as to whether the signature in the affidavit is genuine or not. We find absolutely no merit in the unjustified apprehension entertained by the petitioner about the genuineness of the signature in the affidavit. At any rate, we are not persuaded to agree that the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 can or ought to be invoked in the facts and circumstances of this case. At the moment and with the available inputs, there is nothing that warrants a further probe into the genuineness of the signature in the affidavit. In the course of trial if the respondent disowns the contents of the affidavit or the genuineness of his signature therein, the petitioner can, of course, seek appropriate directions. 3. We do not, in these circumstances, find any merit in this Writ Petition. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/-