VINU Vs. REBIN SUNNY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute between the parties in this O.P(F.C), who are the contestants in O.P.No.155 of 2006 pending before the Family Court, is about the genuineness of Ext.P1 receipt. While it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner and her father have signed Ext.P1, it is the case of the petitioner that she and her father have not written any writings or affixed their signatures in Ext.P1. In an earlier proceedings between the parties, they had reached Ext.P2 agreement and in that agreement also, the question regarding the genuineness of Ext.P1 and the claims made ignoring Ext.P1 were agreed to be resolved by initiating appropriate proceedings. It is accordingly that O.P.No.155 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner herein against the respondents herein after Ext.P2 agreement.

(2.) In O.P.No.155 of 2010 before the Family Court, the respondents wanted Ext.P1 to be sent to the expert. The obvious reason was to get expert opinion on the question of genuineness of the writings and signature of the petitioner herein and her father. The court below allowed that request in part. The prayer to send Ext.P1 to the expert was allowed, but it was allowed only for the purpose of getting expert opinion on the genuineness of the writings and signature of the petitioner. To be specific, the request to get expert opinion on the signature and handwriting of the father of the petitioner, who has also allegedly signed in Ext.P1 as one of the 3 mediators, was not allowed.

(3.) The petitioner then filed another application to secure opinion from the expert about the genuineness of the handwriting and signature of her father in Ext.P1 also. That request was turned down by Ext.P8 order.