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.

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 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

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