Disposed

Anilkumar.K.C., v. Rajagopal Karunan

Kerala HC24 Jan 2019OP(C)/110/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a petition challenging the lower court's refusal to refer disputed documents to an expert for determining the age of signatures. The Court relied on Rajan v. T.K.Madusoodanakurup regarding lack of forensic facilities, held expert reports are merely opinion evidence, yet reserved the right to call for expert opinion after evidence closure if needed for proper disposal.

What did the court decide?

The original petition was disposed of with observations allowing the Court to call for expert opinion after evidence is over.

Anilkumar.K.C., Vs Rajagopal Karunan — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 4TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

OP(C).No. 110 of 2019

¶6

OS 122/2017 of SUB COURT, CHAVAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONER/1st DEFENDANT:

¶8

ANILKUMAR.K.C., AGED 47 YEARS S/O CHANDRAN NAIR, KOZHIPPILLIL HOUSE, CHENDAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MANAKOTTAMKARAYIL DESOM, CHENDAMANGALAM P.O.PARAVOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM 683 512.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD SRI.A.MOHAMMED SAVAD SRI.A.RENJIT SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR SRI.JAYENDRAN KOCHOTH SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR

¶10

RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

¶11

RAJAGOPAL KARUNAN, AGED 64 YEARS S/O KARUNAKARAN,PALLIKADAVATH HOUSE, MULLASSERY VILLAGE-DO-DESOM,MULLASSERY P.O.VASEDATH ROAD,CHAVAKKAD TALUK.THRISSUR. 670 501

¶12

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

OP(C).No. 110 of 2019

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the court below to send three disputed documents in the suit to an expert, to ascertain the age of the signature and the recitals therein, the first defendant in the suit is before this Court.

¶17

The suit is one for recovery of money. The plaintiff relies on a cheque and agreements stated to have been issued by the defendant. The issuance of the documents are under dispute.

¶18

The suit presently stands posted for trial. The first defendant filed an application seeking reference of the documents to an expert. The Court relying on Rajan v. T.K.Madusoodanakurup and Another [2013 (2) KLT 759] held that, as of now, there is no facility available in the Forensic Science Laboratory in India to ascertain the age of the writings on the document. It is not substantiated otherwise before me. Anyhow, the report of an expert has the value of only an opinion evidence. The contention of the defendant can be proved by other

¶19

¶20

OP(C).No. 110 of 2019

¶21

means. However, after the entire evidence is over, if the Court on the materials feels that an expert opinion is required on any aspect, for a proper disposal of the case, then notwithstanding the order impugned, it will be open for the Court to call for the same.

¶22

With the above observations, the original petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN

JUDGE

rsr

OP(C).No. 110 of 2019

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶31

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF PLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITOONER EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY WRITTEN SUBMISSION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF IA 1785/2018 IN OS 122/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT CHAVAKKAD EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.12.2018 IN IA NO 1785/2018 IN OS NO 122/2017

Anilkumar.K.C., v. Rajagopal Karunan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anilkumar.K.C., v. Rajagopal Karunan

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

G. Sasikumar Vs District Collector

Dumini Thomas Vs Tomy C.V.

Pushpan, Vs Kumaran

Amritha.C.S. Vs Dalydas

T.P.Sasidharan Vs Lt. Col.(Retd) G.Devarajan

Jayesh Vs Ancy Davis