IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25864 of 2009(O)
1. RAPPAI, S/O.MOILAN PARANCHU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JOSEPH, S/O.MACHINGAL CHERIYAN,
... Respondent
2. ALECE, D/O.PAVATTASSERY ANTONY,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :15/09/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C).NO.25864 OF 2009 (O)
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following
reliefs:
i. to issue a writ of certionrari or other
appropriate wirt, order or direction,
calling the original of Exts.P5 and P6
orders in I.A.No.5253/2009 and
I.A.No.5255/2009 in O.S.No.126/1998
on the file of the IInd Additional Sub
Judge, Thrissur and quash the same.
2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.126 of 1998 on the
file of the IInd Additional Sub Court, Thrissur. Suit is one for
recovery of money on the basis of an agreement. The
petitioner/plaintiff had applied for sending a document
produced by the defendants and exhibited in evidence as
Ext.B13 for expert opinion after reopening of the evidence.
WPC.25864/09 2
That petition was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge.
Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the
writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with
this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having
regard to the submissions and taking note of the facts and
circumstance presented, I find no notice to the respondents is
necessary, and, hence, it is dispensed with. It is seen from
the order passed by the court below, the document which was
exhibited in evidence as Ext.B13 was produced by the
defendant as early as in 19.1.2005. It was only after the
closing of the evidence, the petitioner/plaintiff had applied for
sending that document for expert opinion. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the need for such a
course arise only after the document was exhibited in
evidence. I do not find any merit in that submission. Suit
involved is seen filed nearly a decade ago, and it is still
pending on the file of the court below. I find no impropriety or
illegality in the order passed by the court below declining the
WPC.25864/09 3
request of the petitioner/plaintiff for sending the document for
expert opinion. The court itself can look into the document
and consider its genuineness. The learned counsel wanted
this Court to make it clear that filing of a writ petition and its
dismissal will not in any way affect his rights to canvass the
same grounds in appeal, if at all an adverse decision is entered
in the suit against him. Needless to point out, whatever be
the observations made by this Court in the present judgment,
it will have no bearing or reflection in the challenges to be
raised against the decree to be passed in that suit.
Writ petition is dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp