The High Court of Kerala allowed this original petition against an order rejecting a forensic examination application. The order was set aside for not addressing substantive contentions and Section 71 of the Evidence Act.
Ext.P8 order set aside; Sub Judge directed to reconsider application and decide within one month.
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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 28TH BHADRA, 1945
OP(C) NO. 132 OF 2023
OS 92/2018 OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER/DEFENDANT:
BABU PHILIP AGED 62 YEARS SON OF PHILIP THAYIL, RESIDING AT THAYIL ATHIMATTAM, MANNANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686561
BY ADVS. ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR)
RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
SURESH KUMAR T AGED 54 YEARS SON OF CHINNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT THALAYATHODY HOUSE, MANJERI AMSOM DESOM, ERANAD TALUK, MANJERI P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676121
BY ADV RAJEEV V.KURUP
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C) NO. 132 OF 2023
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner calls into question the validity of Ext.P8 order issued by the Additional Sub Judge, Kottayam, whereby, an application preferred by him, to send Ext.B2 for forensic examination, has been rejected on the ground that the said document was produced only during the trial.
OP(C) NO. 132 OF 2023
3
OP(C) NO. 132 OF 2023
4
of a copy of this judgment.
Needless to say, I have not entered into the merits of any of the rival contentions and that all of them are left open to be appropriately considered by the learned Sub Judge during the afore exercise.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
stu
OP(C) NO. 132 OF 2023
5
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 132/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
| Exhibit P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 05/03/2015 BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT |
|---|---|
| Exhibit P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 92/2018 OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM |
| Exhibit P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 19/01/2019 FILED BY THE DEFENDANT IN O.S. NO. 92/2018 OF THE SUB COURT , KOTTAYAM |
| Exhibit P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 21/08/2015 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT |
| Exhibit P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2085/2016 OF THE ETTUMANOOR SRO DATED 05/09/2016 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND ABDUL RASHEED PARAMBAN |
| Exhibit P6 | TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO. 9/2022 FILED IN O.S. NO. 92/2018 DATED 20/12/2022 |
| Exhibit P7 | TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 22/12/2022 FILED IN I.A. NO. 9/2022 IN O.S. NO. 92/2018 OF THE SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM |
| Exhibit P8 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/12/2022 IN I.A. NO. 9 OF 2022 IN OS NO. 92 OF 2018 OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB COURT KOTTAYAM |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an order rejecting an application for forensic examination of a document produced during trial is incompetent for not addressing rival submissions and Section 71 of the Indian Evidence Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
BABU PHILIP
SURESH KUMAR T
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
