IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21185 of 2009(P)
1. BINOY VARGHESE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SREEKUMAR, S/O.KUTTAN
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SUDHEER
For Respondent :SRI.M.SREEKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :07/08/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.21185 of 2009 - O
---------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of August, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“i) To issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records
leading to Ext.P7 and quash the same.
ii) To allow Ext.P6 petition in O.S.No.402/2001 on
the file of II Additional Sub Court,
Thiruvananthapuram.”
2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.402/2001 on the
file of the II Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Suit is
based on a promissory note and respondent is the plaintiff. In
the written statement, among other contentions, petitioner
disputed his signature in the pro note produced before the court
on which suit claim was raised. On the request of the defendant
the court ordered for sending over the pro note to an expert for
forensic examination. However, defendant was not available to
give his admitted signature for comparison as he is employed in a
gulf country. So, the order passed for sending over the
document to an expert for examination was suo motu reviewed
W.P.(C).No.21185 of 2009 – O
2
by the court and the petition of the defendant was dismissed.
Ext.P7 is the copy of that order. Propriety and correctness of
Ext.P7 order is challenged in this writ petition invoking the
supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227
of the Constitution of India.
3. I heard the counsel on both sides.
4. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that
petitioner could not appear before the court for the sole reason
he is employed abroad. If two weeks time is granted, he will
appear and give his signatures for comparison of those signatures
with the signature appearing in the pro note. Learned counsel fro
the respondent submitted that because of the dilatory tactics
taken by the petitioner/defendant, the trial of the suit, instituted
in 2001, could not be completed till date. Suit claim based on
the pro note is for a sum of Rs. 3 Lakhs. Having regard to the
long delay, after the institution of the suit, I find indulgence can
be shown to the petitioner/defendant only on terms.
Petitioner/defendant shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the
respondent/plaintiff as a condition precedent for allowing him to
W.P.(C).No.21185 of 2009 – O
3
have forensic examination of pro note as previously ordered by
the court under Ext.P3 order. Cost so ordered shall be paid to
the counsel appearing for the respondent in this Court within two
weeks from today. If cost is not paid as directed within the
stipulated time, the writ petition shall stand dismissed without
any further orders. Ext.P7 order shall stand set aside subject to
the condition stated above and the petitioner is granted three
weeks time after payment of the cost to the respondent to give
his signature before the court for comparison with the signature
appearing in the pro note to send it over to the expert for
forensic examination. The court below is directed to remove the
case from the list if it has already been included in the list for
trial.
The writ petition is disposed of subject to the directions as
stated above. For report, post after two weeks.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.
bkn/-