HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A.HARIPRASAD, J
SUNETHA – Appellant
Versus
SISILY – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Considering the nature of prayers in the petition, I find no necessity to send notice to the party respondents. For effectuating the order, I hereby implead the State of Kerala as an additional respondent.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
3. Prayer in the petition read thus:
i) Issue an appropriate order or direction to the Munsiff Court, Varkala to send a reminder to the Forensic Lab, Thiruvananthapuram to expedite the process of comparing the signatures in the Exhibits X5 and X6 documents marked by the Honourable Munsiff Court, Varkala in O.S.No.322/2013 ii) Grant such other orders as may be deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.
4. It is seen from Ext.P3 that the petitioner was directed to produce the disputed cheques for examination and thereafter, it was sent for examination of a handwriting expert in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram. For more than one year, the report has not been furnished. The suit was instituted in the year 2013 and only on account of the delay in getting the expert's report, the trial is held up.
Considering the facts and c
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.