SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 49408

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top