Allowed

Prakash.K.George v. C.G. Kuriakose

Kerala HC29 Jan 2019OP (RC)/201/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the Rent Control Court's rejection of an expert opinion application despite delay. Directed lower court to permit petitioner to challenge signatures using Sections 47 or 73 of Indian Evidence Act during trial.

What did the court decide?

Rejection of expert opinion application set aside and petitioner directed to use Sections 47 or 73 of Indian Evidence Act during trial.

Prakash.K.George Vs C.G. Kuriakose — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN

¶6

TUESDAY ,THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 9TH MAGHA, 1940

¶7

OP (RC).No. 201 of 2018

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2018 IN IA NO.1903/2018 IN RCP 1/2017 of RENT CONTROL COURT ,PATHANAMTHITTA

¶9

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶10

PRAKASH.K.GEORGE AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.KURIAN GEORGE, INCHATHANAM HOUSE, KUMBAZHA MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW

¶12

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

¶13

1 C.G. KURIAKOSE, AGED 57, S/O. GEEVARGHESE, CHARIVUPURAYIDATHIL (PARTHALAPADIYIL) KUMBAZHA MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, PAUL VARGHESE, AGED 52, PARTHALAPADIYIL HOUSE, KUMBAZHA MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT -689 653

¶14

2 ANNAMMA KURIAKOSE, AGED 51, W/O. C.G.KURIAKOSE, CHARIVUPURAYIDATHIL (PARTHALAPADIYIL), KUMBAZHA MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, PAUL VARGHESE, AGED 52 PARTHALAPADIYIL HOSUE, KUMBAZHA MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT -689 653

¶15

BY ADVS. SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE

¶16

THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

OP(RC) 201/2018

JUDGMENT

K.Harilal, J.

This original petition has been filed challenging the legality and correctness of the findings whereby the rent control court passed Ext.P8 order rejecting the application to send the signatures in Ext.P4 lease deed to the Forensic Science Laboratory for expert opinion.

¶22

2.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶23

3. Going by the impugned order, it could be seen that the application for sending the disputed signatures in Ext.P4 for expert opinion was rejected mainly on the ground that the application was filed belatedly when the case was posted for trial and in the objection filed by the petitioner the signature of the respondent was not challenged.

¶24

4. We have gone through the proceedings and the impugned order. We also find that when the case was posted for pre-trial on 15.11.2018 and 19.11.2018, no steps were taken to send the signatures in Ext.P4 for expert opinion. Thereafter the case was listed for trial on 1.12.2018 and the present application was

¶25

OP(RC) 201/2018 3

¶26

filed on 30.11.2018 only. Therefore, we do not find fault with the court below in observing that the application itself is highly belated.

¶27

5. Coming to the other finding, it is true that the petitioner has not disputed the signatures in Ext.P4 in the objection filed by him. But going by the objection filed by the petitioner, we find that in paragraph 1 the petitioner has specifically denied the averment that the petition schedule room, viz. Shop room No.355/8 was originally rented out to the wife of the petitioner, Smt. Mini Prakash and she vacated the said tenanted premises and thereafter it was leased out to the petitioner. Further, it is specifically stated that shop room No.355/8, which is actually in possession of the wife of the petitioner, is also included in the rent control petition with malafides. Therefore, the rent control court is not justified in rejecting the need for expert opinion on that ground and the same would stand set aside.

¶28

6. In the above view, we are of the opinion that the petitioner can be given an opportunity to challenge the signatures and other entries in Ext.P4, by resorting to other methods available in the Indian Evidence Act. The Indian Evidence Act provides three

¶29

OP(RC) 201/2018

¶30

¶31

methods, to resolve disputes centered around the genuineness of signatures or handwritings as provided under Sections 45, 47 and 73 of the said Act. Now the petitioner has opted the method provided under Section 45 only. The petitioner can be given an opportunity to prove his contention by resorting to other methods as provided under Sections 47 or 73 of Indian Evidence Act. The court below is directed to give an opportunity to the petitioner to do so during the course of trial. The petitioner shall take steps for the same without delay.

¶32

7. As per the order passed by this court in O.P. (RC) No.70/2018 the rent control court is directed to dispose of the rent control petition within four months from 28.6.2018 and subsequently it is extended upto 22.2.2019. In view of this order, the time granted to dispose of the rent control petition will stand extended upto 22.6.2019.

¶33

The original petition is disposed of as above.

¶34

SD/-

¶35

K.HARILAL, JUDGE SD/-

¶36

ANNIE JOHN, JUDGE

Kav/

OP(RC) 201/2018

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶42

EXHIBIT P1	COPY OF R.C.P .NO.1/2017
EXHIBIT P2	COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN R.C.P. NO.1/2017
EXHIBIT P3	COPY OF MEMO DATED 19.11.2018 FILED BY THE COUNSEL OF THE RESPONDENTS IN RESPECT OF PRODUCTION OF RENT AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT P4	COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 01.04.2015 PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENT IN R.C.P. NO.1/2017
EXHIBIT P5	COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT AND MAHAZAR FILED BY ADVOCAE COMMISSIONER IN O.S. NO.98/2017
EXHIBIT P6	COPY OF I.A. NO.1903/2018 FILE DBY PETITINER IN R.C.P. 1/2017
EXHIBIT P7	COPY OF OBJECTION FILE DBY THE RESPONDENT IN I.A. NO. 1903/2018
EXHIBIT P8 Kav/	COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.12.2018 PASSED BY THE RENT CONTROL COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA IN IA NO. 1903/2018 IN R.C.P. NO.1/2017

Prakash.K.George v. C.G. Kuriakose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash.K.George v. C.G. Kuriakose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basheer Vs Ashili Biju

P.P.Antony, Vs Mymoona

R.Jayaprasad Vs Arangath Parambil Moideenkutty

Subash Vasudevan Vs M/S. Vijayan Luxury Housing Project (Pvt.) Ltd.

Kalathil Kundancheri Janaki, Vs v.K.Fathima

Pooja Shajilal Vs Rahul