JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.172 of 2009 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff, Cherthala challenging Ext.P6, common order on I.A.No.2199, 2204 and 2205 of 2011. Respondent came with the suit asking for a declaration that Ext.B1, dated 08.01.2002 is not binding on the suit property as it is not executed by Padmanabhan, father of petitioner and respondent but, it is executed by another Padmanabhan, a nephew of the father of petitioner and respondent. Petitioner filed written statement resisting the claim. He filed Exts.P3 to P5, applications to summon the original of Ext.B1, document from the Co-operative Society, re-open the evidence and to send that document to the expert for opinion. Those applications are dismissed by the learned Additional Munsiff as per Ext.P6, order dated 09.08.2011. That order is under challenge

2. It is contended that in view of the contention raised by the respondent, expert opinion on the disputed signature in Ext.B1 is required. It is also pointed out that though steps were taken to examine the attesting witnesses it did not serve any purpose as one of the attesting witnesses was not found in the address stated and the other is not a