Kerala High Court
Manappuram Assets Finance ... vs E. Dayanandan on 26 July, 2023
1
OP(C) No.1441 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1945
OP(C) NO. 1441 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN IA 1/2022 IN OS 175/2013 OF SUB
COURT, OTTAPPALAM
PETITIONER/S:
MANAPPURAM ASSETS FINANCE LIMITED
SHORNUR REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY P.R ANIL
KUMAR, ASSISTANT MANAGER, AGED 63, S/O RAMAN,
PAMPUMKATTIL HOUSE, VIYYUR VILLAGE, VIYYUR DESOM,
THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, ASSISTANT
MANAGER, MANAPPURAM ASSETS FINANCE,SHORNUR, PIN -
680009
BY ADVS.
C.K.SREEJITH
K.SUJITH MOHAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 E. DAYANANDAN
S/O PADMANAGABHAN, ELIYAPATTA HOUSE, KULAPULLY POST,
SHORNUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN -
679121
2 A. RAVI PRASAD
S/O ACHUTHANKUTTY, ASWATHI NIVAS, NEDUMBURA,
CHERUTHURUTHI, THALAPPILLY TALUK, PIN - 680509
3 D. BALAKRISHNAN
S/O DURAISWAMI, NEELAMKUNNATH HOUSE, GANESHGIRI,
SHORNUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -
679121
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
OP(C) No.1441 of 2023
C.S DIAS,J.
---------------------------
OP(C) No.1441 of 2023
-----------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of July, 2023 .
JUDGMENT
The original petition is filed challenging Ext P4
order passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge,
Ottapalam in IA No.1/2022 in OS No.175/2013.
2. The brief relevant facts for the determination of
the original petition are as follows:
(i) The petitioner has filed the above suit against the
respondents for a decree for recovery of money on the
strength of a hire purchase agreement and a pro note.
(ii) The respondents had availed financial assistance
from the petitioner to purchase a bus. The first
OP(C) No.1441 of 2023
respondent was the hirer and the respondents 2 and 3
were the sureties to the loan transaction.
(iii) The suit is resisted by the respondents through
Ext P2 written statement, wherein the third respondent
has denied execution of the hire purchase agreement and
the pro note.
(iv) The petitioner had filed IA No.1028/2016, to
send the admitted and disputed signatures of the third
respondent for expert opinion to the Forensic Science
Laboratory. The said application was allowed and report
was placed on record. The expert has opined that the
standard signatures in blue were not corresponding to
the writings and signatures in red.
(v) In the above background, the petitioner had filed
IA No.1/2022 (Ext P3) to send the signatures of the third
OP(C) No.1441 of 2023
respondent to the Forensic Science Laboratory,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(vi) The court below, by the impugned Ext P4 order,
has rejected Ext P3 application on the ground that it is
highly belated.
(vii) Ext P4 order is patently erroneous and wrong.
Hence, the original petition.
3. Heard; Sri.Sreejith C.K, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner on admission.
4. The point is whether there is any illegality in
Ext P4 order.
5. The petitioner has filed Ext P1 suit against the
respondents for recovery of money. The third
respondent has denied the execution of the hire purchase
agreement and the pro note.
OP(C) No.1441 of 2023
6. At the instance of the petitioner, there is already
a report of the handwriting expert, who has opined that
the signatures of the third respondent, in the disputed
documents, are not corresponding.
7. Dissatisfied with the said report, the petitioner
has again filed Ext P3 application to send the signature
of the third respondent for expert opinion.
8. The court below, after appreciating the rival
pleadings and in the light of the law that expert opinion
is a weakest form of evidence, has concluded that there
is no necessity to obtain a second report on the disputed
signature from another expert.
9. The court below has rightly concluded that, if
Ext P3 application is allowed it will be a never ending
OP(C) No.1441 of 2023
process. Consequentially, the court below rejected Ext
P4 application.
10. There is profusion of precedential authority that
it is unsafe to decide a matter solely on the basis of
opinion evidence, unless there is substantial form of
evidence. It is also well settled that the opinion evidence
is the weakest form of evidence.
11. It is trite, the supervisory jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to
be exercised sparingly and in cases of exceptional rarity.
The power under this Article casts a duty on this Court
to keep Courts of the District Judicature and Tribunals
within their bounds of authority and see that they
discharge their functions as per the mandate prescribed
under law.
OP(C) No.1441 of 2023
12. Viewed in the above legal and factual
background, I do not find any error or illegality in Ext
P4 order warranting interference by this Court by
exercising the supervisory powers of this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The original petition is devoid of any merits and is
hence dismissed.
sks/26.7.2023 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
OP(C) No.1441 of 2023
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1441/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 175/2013
ON THE FILE OF THE SUBCOURT, OTTAPPALAM
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED
BY THE RESPONDENTS DATED 20.5.2013
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION AND
AFFIDAVIT FILED FOR SENDING THE SIGNATURE
FOR COMPARISON AS IA. NO. 1/2022
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.2.2023 IN
I.A NO.1/2022 IN O.S NO.175/2013
