George Lawrence vs Charlet Lawrence on 10 December, 2007

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Kerala High Court

George Lawrence vs Charlet Lawrence on 10 December, 2007

Bench: K.T.Sankaran

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 2412 of 1999(C)



1. GEORGE LAWRENCE
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. CHARLET LAWRENCE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :10/12/2007

 O R D E R
                   K.T.SANKARAN, J
                       -------------------
                     C.R.P.2412/1999
                      --------------------
        Dated this the 10th day of December, 2007

                          ORDER

This is a revision filed in the year 1999 against an interlocutory order in an application filed in 1997 in a suit of 1991. By the order impugned, the Court below allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs to send the thumb impression and signature of the defendant taken in court for comparison with Exts.X1 and X2 series. The application was originally allowed on 23.9.1998, after hearing both sides. That order was set aside in C.R.P.2009 of 1998 and the Court below was directed to consider the matter afresh. Accordingly, the Court below passed the order impugned on 15th October, 1999, by which the application was allowed.

2. The case put forward by the revision petitioner is that by the order impugned, the Court below has in fact permitted a roving enquiry to be made. It is stated that during the examination of certain witnesses, the genuineness or otherwise of the documents came up for C.R.P.2412/1999 2 consideration and for that purpose, the present I.A was filed by the plaintiffs.

3. I am not inclined to accept the contentions raised by the revision petitioner. It is necessary to dispose of the suit filed in the year 1991. The application was originally allowed in 1998. Had the comparison of thumb impression and signature been made at that time, the suit would have been disposed of by this time.

4. Even otherwise, the Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by the Amendment Act, 1999. As held by the Supreme Court, a revision cannot be entertained and the order impugned set aside, varied or reversed unless where the order passed by the Court below, if it had been in favour of the revision petitioners would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. The order impugned in this revision is an order by which comparison of signature and thumb C.R.P.2412/1999 3 impression of the revision petitioner is sought to be made with admitted signature and thumb impression. Even if the application filed by the respondents is dismissed, that will not put an end to the litigation. Therefore, this revision is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

K.T.SANKARAN Judge mrcs C.R.P.2412/1999 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court