Sunil Kumar vs Sethumadhavan
2022 Latest Caselaw 9569 Ker

OP(C) NO. 1594 OF 2022
                                      1



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
  THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 3RD BHADRA, 1944
                         OP(C) NO. 1594 OF 2022
    AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 76/2017 OF MUNSIFF
                       MAGISTRATE COURT,MANNARKAD
PETITIONER/S:

            SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS
            S/O DAMODHARAN NAIR, MANIKKATH VEETTIL,
            MACHAMTHODU, THACHAMPARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
            THACHAMPARA VILLAGE, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PIN- 678
            593,REP.BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY, SETHUMADHAVAN,
            AGED 53 YEARS, S/O DAMODHARAN NAIR, MANIKKATH
            VEETTIL, MACHAMTHODU, THACHAMPARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
            THACHAMPARA VILLAGE, MANNARKKAD TALUK., PIN -
            678593

            BY ADVS.
            ABDUL JAWAD K.
            U.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA
            A.GRANCY JOSE



RESPONDENT/S:

            SETHUMADHAVAN
            AGED 64 YEARS
            S/O.SIVASANKARAN NAIR, PERINGAMPADAM VEETTIL,
            OPP. CANARA BANK, KONGAD, KONGAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
            KONGAD VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK
            , PIN - 678631


     THIS     OP    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME   UP    FOR    ADMISSION   ON
25.08.2022,     THE     COURT    ON   THE   SAME      DAY    DELIVERED    THE
FOLLOWING:
 OP(C) NO. 1594 OF 2022
                            2



                         JUDGMENT

The original petition is filed assailing the order in

I.A.No.604/2022 in O.S.No.76/2017 (Ext.P6) of the Court

of the Munsiff, Mannarkkad.

2. The skeletal facts relevant for the determination

of the original petition are: the petitioner is the

defendant in the suit filed by the respondent for a decree

of specific performance with an alternative relief. The

petitioner has disputed the agreement in Ext.P3 written

statement. Even though the respondent has contended

that the petitioner has signed the agreement in the

presence of witnesses, the respondent has failed to

examine the alleged witnesses at the time of trial. As the

respondent has committed a criminal offence, by

forging an agreement with an intention to cause loss to

the defendant, it is required to prove the criminal act by

sending the document for scientific examination. For the

above purpose the petitioner filed Ext.P4 application. OP(C) NO. 1594 OF 2022

The respondent has objected to the application by filing

Ext.P5 counter statement. The court below, by the

impugned Ext.P6 order, has dismissed Ext.P4. Ext.P6 is

erroneous and wrong. Hence, the original petition.

3. Heard; Sri.Abdul Jawad K., the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner.

4. The point is whether there is any error or

illegality in Ext.P6 order passed by the Court below.

5. Admittedly, the suit is of the year 2017. The

petitioner filed Ext.P3 written statement as early on

28.07.2017. Even though he had contended that he has

not executed the agreement, he maintained stoic silence

all through out the period. Now, after the trial has

commenced, the petitioner has felt the anxiety to prove

that the respondent has committed an offence for which

purpose he has filed Ext.P4 application, to send the

document for expert opinion. Firstly, the reason stated to

send the document for expert opinion is beyond the

scope of the suit. Secondly, it is too late in the day for OP(C) NO. 1594 OF 2022

the petitioner to aspire for such experimental courses.

The court below has rightly arrived at the conclusion

that the sole intention of the petitioner is to

procrastinate the final determination of the suit, which I

do endorse and concur. I do not find any error or

illegality in Ext.P6 order, warranting interference by this

Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work

out his remedies, in accordance with law, this original

petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rkc/25.08.22 OP(C) NO. 1594 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1594/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit- P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.

NO.76/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF- MAGISTRATE COURT, MANNARKKAD.

Exhibit-P2            A TRUE COPY   OF    THE   AGREEMENT   DATED
                      22/06/2016

Exhibit - P3          A TRUE COPY OF     THE WRITTEN   STATEMENT
                      FILED   BY THE      PETITIONER    IN   O.S
                      NO.76/2017

Exhibit - P4          A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED AS
                      I.A.NO.604/2022

Exhibit - P5          A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER       STATEMENT
                      FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF

Exhibit - P6          A   TRUE   COPY  OF   THE   ORDER DATED
                      30/07/2022 IN I.A NO.604/22 IN O.S

NO.76/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF

-MAGISTRATE COURT, MANNARKKAD