High Court set aside Sub Court order dismissing summons application, permitting document comparison after imposing costs on petitioner and directing urgent trial completion.
Impugned order set aside on payment of Rs. 10,000 costs; petitioner to summon requested documents for comparison.
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 V.CHITAMBARESH
MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/5TH AGRAHAYANA 1934
OP(C).No. 2715 of 2012 ()
IA.NOS.891/2012 & 892/2012 IN OS.140/2012 of SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA
PETITIONER(S):
DAISY MATHEW, AGED 52 YEARS W/O. K.M.MATHEW, PUTHATHAYIL THEKKEPARAMBIL ANICADU P.O., KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS
RESPONDENT(S):
KANGAZHA POST OFFICE, CHENGANACHERY TALUK.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C) NO. 2715/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
| EXT.P1 : | TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.140/2010 DATED FILED BY THE |
|---|---|
| PETITIONER BEFORE THE LEARNED SUB JUDGE, THIRUVALLA. |
| EXT.P2 : | TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.891/2012 DATED FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXHIBIT-P1 SUIT. |
|---|
| EXT.P3 : | TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.892/2012 DATED FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXHIBIT-P1 SUIT. |
|---|---|
| EXT.P4 : | TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD.23.7.2012 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO EXT.P2. |
| EXT.P5 : | TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD.23.7.2012 TO EXT.P3. |
| EXT.P6 : | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF LEARNED SUB JUDGE, THIRUVALLA IN EXT.P2, DTD.24.7.2012. |
| EXT.P7 : | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF LEARNED SUB JUDGE, THIRUVALLA IN EXT.P3, DTD.24.7.2012. |
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE.
V. CHITAMBARESH, J
OP(C) NO. 2715 OF 2012
Dated this the 26th day of November, 2012
JUDGMENT
The petitioner seeks permission to summon certain documents from the District Synik Welfare Board, Pathanamthitta and the State Bank of Travancore, Mallappally branch. This is for the purpose of comparing the signatures of her father with that found in the 'Will' alleged to have been executed by him. Defendants 1 and 2 have in their written statement pleaded about the 'Will' and also produced the original 'Will' alleged to have been executed by their father.
2
OP(C) No. 2715/2012
case the costs is not paid. The court below shall proceed with the trial of the suit with all expedition. The proceedings shall be taken to a logical end within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The Original Petition is disposed of.
V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE
ncd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether permission to summon specific documents for signature comparison is allowable despite evidence being mid-way.
Whether costs can be imposed to allow summoning of documents from third offices.
DAISY MATHEW
JOHNSON MATHEWS
THANKAMMA MATHEW
SOUTH INDIAN BANK
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
KANGAZHA POST OFFICE
V. CHITAMBARESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
