Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

U.P.VARKEY, S/O.PAILY versus MAKKAR, S/O.ALIYAR

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


U.P.VARKEY, S/O.PAILY v. MAKKAR, S/O.ALIYAR - WP(C) No. 29871 of 2006(F) [2006] RD-KL 1596 (14 November 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 29871 of 2006(F)

1. U.P.VARKEY, S/O.PAILY,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. MAKKAR, S/O.ALIYAR,
... Respondent

2. JALAL THADATHIL,

For Petitioner :SRI.S.EASWARAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

Dated :14/11/2006

O R D E R

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

W.P.C.NO.29871 OF 2006 (F)

Dated this the 14 th day of November, 2006.



JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the successful candidate in the election conducted to ward No.VI of Paipra Grama Panchayath, of Muvattupuzha, held on 24.09.05. First respondent is the election petitioner. Petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 order passed by learned Munsiff in I.A.3968/06, where under Ext.P3 application filed by the first respondent, to send the counterfoils of ballots alleged to have been signed by the voters, who according to first respondent did not cast their vote to the handwriting expert. The petition was allowed by the learned Munsiff, Though first respondent sought an order to sent it to a private expert, outside the state, learned Munsiff directed them to send to the forensic laboratory with a special request to consider the matter over the pending matters, as it relates to the election.

2. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, contending that court below should not have allowed the petition without an application for re-opening the case as the evidence was closed by the court earlier. It was contended that court before sending the documents to an expert, should have compared the signatures and arrived at a finding that there is difference in the signatures warranting opinion of an expert, and so Ext.P5 order is to be set aside. 2

3. On hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioner I do not find any infirmity in Ext.P5 order warranting interference in exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. On the materials placed before learned Munsiff, it was found that it is necessary to get a report of an expert, on the disputed signatures to decide the disputes. Even if court is competent to compare the signature was provided under Section 73 of Evidence Act, comparison of signature is difficult task. Court cannot be find fault for deciding that report by an expert on the disputed signatures would aid the court to arrive at a correct conclusion. The discretion so exercised cannot be interfered in exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court. The writ petition is dismissed. Petitioner is at liberty to challenge the correctness of the report when filed, if so, advised. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,

JUDGE.

bkn


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.