Allowed

Gopinatha Pillai v. Chandrasekhara Pillai

Kerala HC18 Jul 2016OP(C)/1354/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenging an order dismissing an application to send a disputed document for Government Forensic Laboratory examination, the High Court held the lower court's reasons unsustainable and directed the document be sent to the Thiruvananthapuram lab.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order setting aside the earlier order permitting private expert report was set aside; the petitioner's application to send the document to the Government Forensic Science Laboratory, Thir

Gopinatha Pillai Vs Chandrasekhara Pillai — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2016/27TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No.1354 of 2016 (O)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NOS.2127/2015 & 427/2014 IN O.S.NO.223/2010 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, HARIPAD.

¶7

PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

¶8

GOPINATHA PILLAI, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O PACHUPILLAI, KALAVILAYIL VEETTIL, PALLIPPAD SOUTH MURI, MUTTOM P.O, PALLIPAD VILLAGE-690 512.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS:

¶11

1. CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, S/O. PACHUPILLAI, CHAKKOLIL THEKKETHIL VEETTIL, EVOOR SOUTH MURI, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE (P.O),

¶12

2. VIJAYALEKSHMI AMMA,

¶13

S/O. BHARGAVI AMMA, SREEBHAVANAM, KOTTACKOM MURI, PALLIPPAD VILLAGE (P.O), 690 512.

¶14

3. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,

¶15

V. VIHAR, PALLIPPAD SOUTH MURI, PALLIPAD VILLAGE (P.O), 690 512.

¶16

4. PUSHPA, V VIHAR, PALLIPPAD SOUTH MURI, PALLIPPAD VILLAGE (P.O) 690 512.

¶17

5. BHARGAVI AMMA, W/O.PACHUPILLAI,KALAVILAYIL VEETTIL, PALLIPPAD SOUTH MURI, PALLIPPAD VILLAGE (P.O), 690 512.

¶18

R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN R3-R4 BY ADV. SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SMT.V.BEENA SMT.V.DEEPA SMT.N.G.SINDHU SRI.S.NAUSHAD

¶19

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

:2:

¶21

OP(C).No. 1354 of 2016 (O)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO 223/2010 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT HARIPAD. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE I.A NO 427/2014 IN O.S NO 223/2010 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT HARIPAD. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE I.A NO 2127/2015 IN O.S NO 223/2010 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT HARIPAD. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16-03-2016 IN I.A NO 2127/2015 IN O.S NO 223/2010 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT HARIPAD. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16-03-2016 IN I.A NO 427/2014 IN O.S NO 223/2010.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶26

----------------------: NIL

//True Copy//

P.A. to Judge

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶31

O.P. (Civil) No.1354 of 2016

¶32

Dated this the 18^th day of July, 2016

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

This original petition was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.223/2010 on the file of the Munsiffs Court, Harippad, challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the court below under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶35

It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner filed O.S.No.223/2010 on the file of the Munsiffs Court, Harippad for declaring his 1/4^th share in the property and also to declare document No.516/1998 of S.R.O., Cheppad, is not binding on the petitioner's share in the property and other consequential reliefs. The respondents filed written statement denying the allegations. According to the defendants, the petitioner himself is a party to the document and signed the document and as such, he has no right in the property. But she denied her signature in the impugned document. Earlier she filed Ext.P2 petition for sending the document for expert opinion as I.A.No.427/2014 and the application was allowed and court below had directed to deposit an amount of 14,000/- and appointed a private₹ expert for examination of the documents. Thereafter he filed Ext.P3 petition to review that order and send the document for Government Forensic laboratory and that petition was dismissed by the court below by impugned Ext.P4 order, which is being challenged by the petitioner

¶36

O.P. (Civil) No.1354 of 2016

¶37

¶38

for filing this original petition.

¶39

Heard Sri.Rinny Stephen, counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Shanavas Khan, counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Smt. V. Beena, counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4.

¶40

When the application came up for hearing today, the counsel for the respondents submitted that they have no objection in sending the document to Government Forensic Laboratory for examination. It is true that in the earlier application filed by the petitioner for similar purpose as I.A.No.427/2014, the court below had allowed the application permitting the document to be examined by a private expert. Immediately he filed the present I.A. for reviewing that order and sending the same for Government expert for that purpose. It cannot be taken as a ground for protracting the proceedings. Since he was not having faith in private expert opinion, it is quite natural that a person will be seeking a document to be examined by an expert of a Government institution. So considering the circumstances, the reasons stated by the court below for dismissing the application is unsustainable in law. So Ext.P4 order passed by the court below is set aside and the application is allowed and the document is directed to be sent to Government Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram for getting expert opinion as requested for in the petition. The court

¶41

O.P. (Civil) No.1354 of 2016

¶42

¶43

below is directed to get instructions from the Forensic Laboratory regarding the expenses required and also the documents to be produced for the purpose of comparison etc., and then direct the petitioner to deposit the amount before that court within a particular time and send the document to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram with a direction to send the report within a time frame and then dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible considering the fact that the case is of the year 2010.

¶44

With the above direction and observation, the petition is disposed of. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court, immediately.

¶45

Sd/- (K. Ramakrishnan, Judge)

¶46

//True Copy//

¶47

P.A. to Judge

¶48

Gopinatha Pillai v. Chandrasekhara Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopinatha Pillai v. Chandrasekhara Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thomas Chacko Vs State of Kerala

Thiruvanchoor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Georgekutty Kurian Vs State of Kerala

Sanila Vs Sathyan

K C Joseph Vs P M Sebastian

Babu Kuriakose Vs Thomas Jacob @ Jinu