the said P.K.Ramachandran Pillai and also to determine the age of the print with the papers, and the same are sought only for delaying the present suit proceedings endlessly. In fact, the applicant/D1 did not make out any case for sending the document(s) for forensic analysis of the above-said document(s). The further contention of the D1 that P.K.Ramachandran Pillai is no more, due to which the D1 will provide the certified copy of the prior document(s) filed by the said P.K.Ramachandran Pillai before the Kerala High Court or even the District Court, Ernakulam, apparently establishes that D1 is not directly acquainted with the signature(s) of P.K.Ramachandran Pillai. Without noting the ante-literm-motam (before the suit is filed) signatures of the said P.K.Ramachandran Pillai, had resorted D1 to raise the allegation(s). Furthermore, the complaint regarding forgery of the signature(s) is made only as an afterthought and the same is without even knowing the actual signature(s) of the said P.K.Ramachandran Pillai. After the death of the said P.K.Ramakrishnan Pillai, the applicant/D1 had conveniently filed the present application, but no original signature(s) could be obtained. Admittedly, the applicant/D1 is not in possession of the original signature(s) of the said P.K.Ramakrishnan Pillai, and the D1 cannot seek for forensic analysis to compare the signature(s) of the said P.K.Ramakrishnan Pilliai.
