LALA Vs. DEVASSY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXT.P8, order passed by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Thrissur on October 14, 2010 on I.A.No.7548 of 2010 in O.S.No.861 of 2007 refusing to send EXT.P3, disputed agreement for sale to the expert for opinion regarding signature is under challenge. First respondent claimed that he had entered into an agreement (EXT.P3) with the second respondent/first defendant on 11.05.2007 for purchase of the suit property, and at a time when that agreement was in force the second respondent transferred the property to the petitioner/second defendant as per sale deed No.4523 of 2007 dated 20.07.2007. First respondent sued petitioner and second respondent for decree for specific performance of EXT.P3, agreement and for cancellation of EXT.P2, sale deed referred to above. Second respondent filed written statement (EXT.P5) denying execution of the agreement. In the written statement filed by the petitioner (EXT.P4) he only pleaded ignorance about the agreement. Second respondent/first defendant remained absent and he was set ex parte, according to the petitioner on account of collusion between respondents 1 and

(2.) PETITIONER was permitted to amend his written statement as per order dated 16.07.2010 to incorporate a plea that no such agreement (Ext.P3) is executed between respondents 1 and 2. It is while so, petitioner filed I.A.No.7548 of 2010 to send the disputed agreement to the expert for opinion. That application was resisted by the second respondent on various grounds. Learned Sub Judge dismissed the application by Ext.P8, order observing that second respondent/first defendant is ex parte and hence it is not possible to obtain specimen signature from him. It is also observed that I.A.No.7548 of 2010 is highly belated and there is no explanation for the delay. According to the learned Sub Judge purport of the application is to protract the proceeding.