IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30232 of 2008(Y)
1. C.O.RAMAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, AGED 59,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. C.H.RAVEENDRAN REP.BY P.A.HOLDER
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :17/10/2008
O R D E R
V.RAMKUMAR,J.
...................................................
W.P. (C) No. 30232 of 2008
...................................................
DATED: 17-10-2008
JUDGMENT
The Writ Petitioner represented by its power-or-
attorney holder chalenges Ext.P9 order passed by the Addl.
Sub court, Thalassery dismissing his application filed as I.A.
3241 of 2008 in O.S. 118 of 1999. The said suit instituted
by the respondent herein is one for realisation of a sum of
Rs. 20 lakhs allegedly borrowed by the petitioner herein on
the strength of Ext.A2 cheque and A11 agreement. The
petitioner disputed having executed Ext.A2 cheque and
Ext.A11 agreement. He had earlier filed an application
before the court below to send both the disputed
documents to the Forensic Science Laboratory,
Thiruvananthapuram for expert opinion as to the age of the
writings and the authorship of the same. The Forensic
Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram returned the
documents stating that it is not possible to determine age of
the writing as also whether the writings were written on the
date shown in the documents. Subsequently the petitioner
filed another application requesting the court to send the
disputed documents to the Central Forensic Science
W.P. ) No. 30232 of 2008 – Y -:2:-
Laboratory, Hyderabad. That request also was complied
with and they also returned the documents with the same
opinion as was given by the Forensic Science Laboratory ,
Thiruvananthapuram. Thereupon, the court below
dismissed the said application. The order dismissing the
application was challenged by the petitioner before this
Court by filing W.P. C. 26469 of 2008 . This Court as per
Ext.P5 judgment dated 2-09-2008 did not interfere with
the order of dismissal. This court observed that the
petitioner is entitled to adduce other evidence in support
of his case that the disputed documents were not executed
by him. Thereafter the petitioner, instead of getting ready
for the trial of the suit, filed I.A. 3241 of 2008 requesting
the trial court to send the disputed documents to any of
the five institutions referred to in the petition. Observing
that two of his earlier petitions for the same purpose had
been rejected by the court, and confirmed by the High
Court the learned Sub Judge dismissed I.A. 3241 of 2008 as
per Ext.P9 order dated 20-09-2008. It is the said order
which is assailed in this Writ Petition .
2. I agree with the court below that in a suit of the
year 1999 which had been listed for trial long ago the
petitioner who had already failed to get the documents
examined by experts for the purpose for which he sought
their reference, was not entitled to file successive petitions
W.P. ) No. 30232 of 2008 – Y -:3:-
for the same purpose. He has been given an opportunity
to adduce other evidence by this Court while disposing of
W.P. ( C) . No. 26469 of 2008 as per Ext.P5 judgment. It is
high time that the case was tried and disposed of. I,
therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P9
order.
This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
Dated this the 17th day of October 2008.
V.RAMKUMAR,
Judge.
Ani/
W.P. ) No. 30232 of 2008 – Y -:4:-