Petitioner challenged an order rejecting a prayer to send a disputed 'lakshyam' document for forensic analysis under Article 227. The court found the prayer only sought ageing analysis, not signature comparison, and dismissed the petition without costs.
Petition dismissed without 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 P.SOMARAJAN
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/29TH PHALGUNA, 1938
OP(C).No. 2743 of 2013 (O)
AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.712/2013 IN O.S.NO.51 OF 2010 OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE (ADDL) OF PALAKKAD.
PETITIONER:
MOHANAN, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN PILLAI, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT VELMURUGAN ILLAM, PETTAKADU, CHULLIMADA, PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENT:
K.K.NAGARAJ, S/O.KRISHNASWAMY, AGED 46 YEARS, UPPUTHITTA STREET, KURICHI, SUNDARAPURAM, COIMBATORE DISTRICT, PIN 641 021.
BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C).No. 2743 of 2013 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.51/2010 OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE (ADDL) OF PALAKKAD. EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P1 APPLICATION.
EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.712/2013 IN O.S.NO.51/2010 OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE (ADDL) OF PALAKKAD. EXT.P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27-6-2013 IN I.A.NO.712/2013 IN O.S. NO.51/2010 OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE (ADDL) OF PALAKKAD.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
AHZ/
P. Somarajan, J.
O.P.(C) No.2743 of 2013 (O)
Dated this the 20th day of March, 2017
JUDGMENT
Challenging Ext.P4 order in I.A.No.712 of 2013 in O.S.No.51 of 2010 of the Sub Court, Palakkad the defendant/petitioner came up with this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The said application was filed for the purpose of sending the disputed document “lakshyam” involved in the suit for analyzing and examining the age of the document, ink, writings and signature. The prayer in the application (Ext.P3) is as follows:
“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to send the disputed document 'lakshyam' produced by the plaintiff along with the above suit for analyzing and examining the age of the document, ink, writings and signature and call for a report.”
O.P.(C) No.2743 of 2013 (O)
:: 2 ::
P.Somarajan, J.
O.P.(C) No.2743 of 2013 (O)
Dated this the 20th day of March, 2017
JUDGMENT
Challenging Ext.P4 order in I.A.No.712 of 2013 in O.S.No.51 of 2010 of the Sub Court, Palakkad the defendant/petitioner came up with this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The said application was filed for the purpose of sending the disputed document “lakshyam” involved in the suit for analyzing and examining the age of the document, ink, writings and signature. The prayer in the application (Ext.P3) is as follows:
“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to send the disputed document 'lakshyam' produced by the plaintiff along with the above suit for analyzing and examining the age of the document, ink, writings and signature and call for a report.”
O.P.(C) No.2743 of 2013 (O)
:: 3 ::
'lakshyam' is to be forwarded to an expert for analyzing and examining the age of ink, writings and signature. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner tried to advance a case that the intention of the petitioner was to obtain a report regarding the writings and signature, there is nothing in the prayer to substantiate the same. The prayer is clear and unambiguous in all respect. What is prayed for is only to analyze and examine (i) the age of the document and (ii) the age of ink, writings and signature. Even no dispute was raised in the said prayer regarding the writing or the signature found in the document 'lakshyam'. There is no prayer to send the document for the purpose of comparison of the signature or the writing with that of admitted signature or the writing of the petitioner so as to prove its genuineness. Further, a document can be prepared by using ink which was kept in the shop or by a party for a pretty long time and it will not reveal anything with respect to the due execution of the document and it cannot be even taken as a factor to be considered in proving the genuineness of the document. There is no prayer in the application to forward any admitted signature of the petitioner for the purpose of comparison of the
O.P.(C) No.2743 of 2013 (O)
:: 4 ::
disputed signature.
Further, it was fairly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant that in the written statement filed by the defendant, he has disputed the signature found affixed in the document 'lakshyam'. If that be so, the prayer must be for a comparison of the signature found affixed in the document by an expert with the admitted signature of the defendant for assessing its genuineness. No such prayer is seen incorporated in the application. Hence there is no reason for any interference by this court. The petition deserves only dismissal and I do so, but without any costs.
P. Somarajan Judge
ahz/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether this court should interfere with the impugned order rejecting the prayer for forensic examination of the disputed document 'lakshyam' under Article 227.
Whether the prayer in the second appeal was limited to ageing the document and ink without seeking signature comparison.
Whether the absence of a prayer for signature comparison warrants dismissal of the petition.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
MOHANAN, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN PILLAI
K.K.NAGARAJ, S/O.KRISHNASWAMY
P. SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
