Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
MATHEW K.V – Appellant
Versus
LESLIN MICHAL A.L – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused petitions for document production in compliance with a court order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. counsel for the respondent confirms document production commitment. (Para 3) |
| 3. trial court mandated to proceed with the case post document production. (Para 4) |
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the accused and respondent is the complainant in a proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the NI Act’) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Cherthala (for short ‘the trial court’) as S.T. No.234/2019.
2. The petitioner filed a petition to direct the respondent to produce the document containing the signature of his wife subscribed in the year 2009 so as to send the same for forensic examination. The said petition was allowed as per Ext.P7 order. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent did not comply with Ext.P7 order. He has approached this Court with a prayer to give a direction to the trial court to ensure the production of the documents containing the admitted writings and signatures of the wife of the respondent who was examined as DW3 during the year 2009 in compliance with Ext.P7 order.
3. I have h
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
