In a civil revision petition against an interlocutory order allowing document comparison, the High Court of Kerala held the revision not maintainable as the order did not finally dispose of the suit, dismissing the petition under Section 115 CPC.
Civil revision petition dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN
MONDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2007 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1929
CRP.No. 2412 of 1999(C)
----------------------I.A.176/97 IN O.S.338/91 IN THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF, PUNALUR
REVN. PETITIONER/DEFENDANT/COUNTER PETITOINER -----------------GEORGE LAWRENCE, PULIMOOTTIL VEEDU, CHALACODE WARD, PUNALUR MUNICIPALITY, PUNALUR
BY ADV. SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR SMT.CHINCY GOPAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS/PETITIONERS
ADDL.R4 TO R6
BY ADV. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER
SRI.P.GOPAL
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K.T.SANKARAN, J
C.R.P.2412/1999
Dated this the 10th day of December, 2007
ORDER
This is a revision filed in the year 1999 against an interlocutory order in an application filed in 1997 in a suit of 1991. By the order impugned, the Court below allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs to send the thumb impression and signature of the defendant taken in court for comparison with Exts.X1 and X2 series. The application was originally allowed on 23.9.1998, after hearing both sides. That order was set aside in C.R.P.2009 of 1998 and the Court below was directed to consider the matter afresh. Accordingly, the Court below passed the order impugned on 15th October, 1999, by which the application was allowed.
C.R.P.2412/1999
2
consideration and for that purpose, the present I.A was filed by the plaintiffs.
C.R.P.2412/1999
3
impression of the revision petitioner is sought to be made with admitted signature and thumb impression. Even if the application filed by the respondents is dismissed, that will not put an end to the litigation. Therefore, this revision is not maintainable and the
same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
K.T.SANKARAN
Judge
mrcs
C.R.P.2412/1999
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a civil revision petition is maintainable against an interlocutory order permitting comparison of signature and thumb impression.
Whether the impugned order would have finally disposed of the suit if it had been favorable to the revision petitioner.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Supreme CourtReferred¶30
1 provisions across 1 enactments
George Lawrence
Charlet Lawrence
Ag Augustine Jomex
Carlos Gomez
C. Jacob
Agnes Joseph
K.T. Sankaran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
