JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by Ext P8 order passed in IA No.19/2022 in OS No.98/2018 by the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kottayam, the defendant in the suit has filed the original petition. The respondents are the plaintiffs.

2. The skeletal facts leading to Ext P8 order, in a nutshell, are; the respondents have filed the above suit for a decree of partition. The petitioner has filed Ext P2 written statement along with a counter-claim, also seeking a decree for partition in respect of additional properties that are not included in Ext P1 plaint. The respondents have filed Ext P3 replication to Ext P2 written statement. The parties have gone to trial. The first respondent was examined as PW1 and Exts A1 to A13 were marked on her side. Ext A3 document (Ext P5 produced in the original petition) was marked subject to proof. Then, the respondents filed IA No.19/2022 (Ext P6), praying the court below to scan the QR Code reflected on Ext P5 document in order to ascertain its genuineness. Even though the petitioner filed Ext P7 objection to Ext P6 application, the court below, by the impugned Ext P8 order, has allowed Ext P6 application. Ext P8 is manifestly wrong and unsustainable in