This Original Petition challenged the dismissal of an application for a further handwriting expert's report in a money suit. The High Court held that an expert report is merely opinion evidence. The impugned order was found to be without infirmity, and the petition was dismissed.
The Original Petition (Civil) was dismissed as the impugned order suffered from no infirmity.
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 SATHISH NINAN
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1940
OP(C).No. 991 of 2015
OS. NO. 547/2009 OF SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA
PETITIONER
VALSAMMA, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O KANNAMPILLY ANTO, PERAMBRA DESOM, KODAKARA VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY TALUK
BY ADV.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENT:
ELIYAMA, AGED 65, W/O KEERIYATH FRANCIS, ANTO, PERAMBRA DESOM, KODAKARA VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY TALUK
BY ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.SEBIN THOMAS SRI.VIVEK V. KANNANKERI SMT.J.KASTHURI SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C).No. 991 of 2015 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL
/TRUE COPY/
PA TO JUDGE
sdr/18.7.18
SATHISH NINAN, J.
....................
O.P.(C) No. 991 of 2015
.................................
Dated this the 17th day of July, 2018
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in a suit for money is the
petitioner in this Original Petition. The suit is based on a document, claimed to have been executed by the defendant. The defendant disputes the said document and her signature therein. On the application of the defendant, the document was forwarded to a hand writing expert for comparison along with admitted signatures of the defendant. The expert opined against the plaintiff. Thereupon, the plaintiff filed an application as I.A.No.3465 of 2014 seeking further reference to an expert for comparison with certain other documents produced by her. The application was dismissed by the court below.
O.P.(C) No. 991 of 2015
2
If after the entire evidence in the suit is over, the court below feels that the evidence on record is not sufficient and that further report from an expert is necessary, it will be open for the court below to consider the request presently made by the plaintiff. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. This Original Petition (Civil) is disposed of as above.
SATHISH NINAN, JUDGE
AMV/17/07/2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the court below was correct in dismissing the plaintiff's application for a further handwriting expert's report after the initial report was unfavorable.
VALSAMMA
ELIYAMA
SATHISH NINAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
