AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ext.P6 order dated 31.07.2018 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Ottapalam, is challenged by the aggrieved plaintiff in O.S.No.66/2017. The suit was filed for specific performance of a contract of sale.
The second defendant is the power of attorney holder of the first defendant. The first defendant in the suit questioned execution of agreement for sale contending that the thump impression appearing underneath his photograph affixed in the document is not his. No dispute with respect to execution of power of attorney in favour of the second defendant exists between the parties to the suit.
In the course of the suit, first defendant filed I.A.No.343/2018 seeking to send the agreement for sale to Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison of his true thump impression seen in the power of attorney with the disputed thump impression in the agreement for sale. Though plaintiff opposed the application, the court below rejecting the objection, allowed the application by the impugned order.
I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents.
The contention raised by the petitioner is that he has no case in the plaint that the first defendant either signed or affixed his thump impression in the agreement for sale. On the other hand, the contention in the plaint is that the first defendant executed agreement for sale though his agent, the second defendant.
If this is the nature of contention, it escapes one's understanding as to how the question as to whether first defendant affixed his thump impression in agreement for sale arises in the suit for consideration at all. This aspect of the matter was not taken note of by the court below. The court below without applying its mind simply ordered the documents before the court to be forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison. The impugned order cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside.
In the result, original petition succeeds and the impugned order dated 31.07.2018 is set aside. I.A.No.343/2018 is dismissed. This being a suit of 2017, there shall be a direction to the court below to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand closed.