THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

1. Ext. P4, order passed by the Court of learned Additional Sub Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram on 16/06/2011 on IA No. 1847 of 2011 in OS No. 830 of 2007 is under challenge in this proceeding. Petitioner filed the suit against respondent for recovery of money based on a dishonoured cheque alleging that respondent borrowed Rupees Eight lakhs from him in the year, 2007 and executed the cheque in question. Respondent denied allegations and contended that she has not executed any cheque as alleged for repayment of Rupee Eight lakhs and claimed that in connection with borrowal of Rupees Ten thousand petitioner had obtained signed blank cheque and blank stamp paper which has been misused. She has specifically contended that there was no occasion for her to borrow Rupees Eight lakhs nor has petitioner the capacity to pay such amount. Parties went to trial and petitioner was examined as PW 1. When respondent was in the box Ext. P1, letter allegedly written by her to her mother was put to her obviously with intend to prove that she had borrowed Rupees Eight lakhs from the petitioner as mentioned in the said letter. Respondent denied that she has sent such letter to her mother. Thereon petitioner filed IA No. 1847 of 2011 to send Ext. P1, to expert for opinion and for the said purpose to obtain specimen handwriting of the respondent in (Open Court. Leaned Sub Judge directed respondent to give her specimen handwriting in pen Court and that was taken. However, learned Sub Judge dismissed IA No. 1847 of 2011 by the impugned order.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the main reason stated by learned Sub judge to disallow Interlocutory Application No. 1847 of 2011 is that report of expert is not conclusive and considerable time has elapsed since institution of the suit. It is contended by learned counsel that petitioner being plaintiff would not in the normal course attempt to protract the proceeding to his disadvantage. It is also contended that learned Munsiff has observed report of the expert is not conclusive. It is contended that the report is a reliable piece of fence. Reliance is placed on the decision in Damara Venkata Murali Krishna Rao v. Gurujupalli Satvathamma, 2008 KHC 6595 : 2008 (6) SCJ 83 : 2008 (12) SCC 170 : 2008 (10) SCALE 240. where it is held that opinion of the expert is certainly a piece of evidence in port of the alleged execution of the document.

3. Learned counsel for respondent contended that attempt of petitioner is only to harass respondent who is a poor widow, her husband, an Army man having expired in the War against terrorists. It is submitted that she lost her only son and now she is a hapless widow. It is (ed out that she was abducted by petitioner and others and her signature was forcibly lined for which police has registered a case. Further contention is that even in Ext. P1 sought to be sent to the expert for opinion was not produced along with the plaint or at a time Boner was examined as PW 1 so that, respondent did not get opportunity to cross-examine petitioner with reference to the disputed document (Ext. P1). It is also the contention of learned counsel that the letter is allegedly sent to the mother of respondent but no attempt was made to examine the mother of respondent as a witness. It is contended that the postal cover in which the letter was allegedly received by the mother was not produced. Further contention is that it is not shown that 'Kumar' mentioned in Ext. P1 is the petitioner. It is pointed out that at any rate if at all it is necessary it is within the power of the Court below to invoke Section 73 of the Evidence Act (for short, "the Act").

4. The document in question was produced, undoubtedly for cross-examination of respondent when examined as DW 1. Court can permit the opposite party to produce a document cross-examination. Here the suit is based on a dishonoured cheque which was produced along with the plaint. Therefore it cannot be contended