Remanded

Rajendran v. Prasanna

Kerala HC20 Jan 2017OP(C)/3181/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge set aside the impugned order dismissing an application to send disputed signatures to the Forensic Lab. The court directed the lower court to consider a subsequent application for admitted signature documents and ordered the petitioner to produce such documents within one month.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; court below to consider Ext.P5 application; petitioner to produce admitted signature documents within one month.

Rajendran Vs Prasanna — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/30TH POUSHA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 3181 of 2016 (O)

¶6

OS.NO.285/2012 OF SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA.

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

RAJENDRAN, AGED 51, S/O BHARGAVAN, BHARATHI NILAYAM, PUTHENPURACKAL THEKKETHARAYIL, PALLICKAL NADUVILE MURI, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW SRI.GIBI.C.GEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

PRASANNA, AGED 46, W/O SURESH, NIRAYIL VEEDU, THULAMPARAMBU NADUVATHUM MURI, HARIPPAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690514.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

mbr/

¶15

OP(C).No. 3181 of 2016 (O)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶18

EXHIBIT P1:	COPY OF PLAINT IN OS NO.285/2012.
EXHIBIT P2:	COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OS NO.285/2012.
EXHIBIT P3:	COPY OF IA NO.677/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OS NO.285/2012.
EXHIBIT P4:	COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO EXHIBIT P3 APPLICATION.
EXHIBIT P5:	COPY OF IA NO.630/2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6:	COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.7.2016 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, MAVELIKARA IN IA NO.677/2015 IN OS NO.285/2012.

¶19

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶24

O.P.(C) No. 3181 of 2016

¶25

Dated this the 20^th day of January, 2017

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

1.Petitioner is the defendant in a suit. He has approached this Court aggrieved by the dismissal of Ext.P3 application for sending the disputed signature to the Forensic Lab, by the court below.

¶28

2.The impugned order shows that the petitioner did not produce the admitted signature for sending the document to the Forensic Lab. In that view of the matter, the original petition is disposed of, as follows;

¶29

The impugned order is set aside.

¶30

The court below shall consider Ext.P5 application filed by the petitioner to call for the documents showing admitted signature and pass appropriate orders thereon.

¶31

The petitioner shall produce the documents showing admitted signature before the court below within one month.

¶32

Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶33

bka/-

Rajendran v. Prasanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendran v. Prasanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Ratnamalika Varassiar Vs Board of Trustees

K.S.Sanjeev Vs P.Vasudevan

Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Swapna.R Vs K.v.Mohan Kumar

Rajan Vs Anilkumar

J.N.Florance Thampi Vs M.Vijayamma