Kerala High Court
Leela Raman vs Sheela on 8 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 19TH MAGHA,1942
OP(C).No.2771 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER 27.06.2018 IN AS 256/2014 OF ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR
OS NO.2341/2006 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR
-------------
PETITIONER/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
LEELA RAMAN,
AGED 72 YEARS
W/O.KUNNATHULLY RAMAN, MANAKODY VILLAGE AND DESOM,
THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
SHEELA,
AGED 42 YEARS
D/O.PADIKKALA VEETIL ANTONY, OLLUKKARA VILLAGE,
PARAVATTANI DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR
DISTRICT - 686 330.
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV. SRI.MUHAMMED SAJU
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.02.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN, J.
==================
O. P. (C) No.2771 of 2018
==================
Dated this the 8th day of February, 2021
JUDGMENT
Application seeking orders for expert opinion
on a disputed document-promissory note, was
dismissed. The order is under challenge in this
original petition.
2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Rajit Tulasi
Panicker on behalf of the petitioner and
Sri.Mohammed Saju, learned counsel for the
respondent.
3. The proceedings have arisen in a first
appeal. The suit is one for recovery of money based
on a promissory note. The execution of the
promissory note was denied by the defendant. The
suit was decreed by the trial court, against which
the defendant filed As 256/2014 before the First
Additional District Court, Thrissur. In the appeal,
the defendant-appellant moved an application as IA
1904/2018 seeking reference of the disputed
promissory note to an expert for comparison of
O. P. (C) No.2771 of 2018
signature of the defendant with an agreement relied
on by him. The appellate court was not inclined to
grant the prayer noticing that the application is
highly belated.
4. I am of the opinion that, on the plea of
denial of execution, the application need not have
been dismissed on the ground of delay alone. If on
hearing the appeal and on considering the entire
materials on record, the appellate court forms an
opinion that it would be proper to obtain forensic
report on the disputed signature, then it shall be
open for the court to consider the request. In
order to enable the same the order impugned is set
aside. The appellate court shall consider IA
1904/2018 along with the appeal. I make it clear
that I have not expressed either way, on the merits
of the application.
Original petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. to Judge
OP(C).No.2771 OF 2018
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROMISSORY NOTE DATED
20.8.2004.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED
20.8.2004.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 24.8.2007 IN
O.S.NO.2341/2006 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT
THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF I.A.1904/2018 IN AS.256/2014
DATED 21.5.2018.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.6.2018 IN
AS.256/2014 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
THRISSUR.
--------------
