K.N. VISHWANATHAN NAIR S/O K.K. NARAYANA NAIR AND MRS. V.G. VASANTHI W/O K.N. VISHWANATHAN Vs. SMT. K. RAJANI W/O K. CHANNADEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the suit by the respondent seeking release of Rs. 7,05,077,65p/ - with interest at 18% and consequential reliefs I.A.14 was filed by the petitioners -defendants under Order 26 Rule 10A r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking to issue a Commissioner for examination of the signature on Ex.P -1 with standard and specimen signature of the 1st defendant and fee opinion. The trial Court by the impugned order rejected the said application. Hence, Writ Petition No. 36459 and 36460/2009.

(2.) I .A. No. 15 was filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of CPC seeking to recall PW1 for further examination. The trial Court by the impugned order rejected the said application. Hence, Writ Petition Nos. 36461 -62/2009

(3.) SRI . Jose Sebastian, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent defends the impugned order and submits that no interference is called for. He contends that it is the second Commissioner that would be appointed and hence it is impressible in law. In support of his contentions he relies on the Judgments in the case of Stella v. Nathalla reported in 1974 Kar.L.J. (Short Notes) Item 296, in the case of K. Ramalingam Vs. M.V. Ramanathan, AIR 1978 Kant 65 and in the case of Swami Premananda Bharathi Vs. Swami Yogananda Bharathi and Anr., AIR 1985 Ker 83 .