RAVEENDRAN NAIR Vs. POLICE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner calls into question the validity of Ext.P11 order issued by the Second Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, in O.S.No.225/2019

(2.) Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.R.Gopan - learned counsel for the petitioner, explains that the afore suit was filed by his client against the 2nd respondent herein, seeking declaration of title and possession over the plaint schedule property, on the strength of a 'Will' dtd. 15/2/2016, issued by a certain Sri.Jayamadhavan Nair; and for a consequential decree of injunction, restraining the defendant/2ndrespondent herein, from trespassing into it, or obstructing his peaceful enjoyment.

(3.) Sri.S.Sreekumar explained that, while so, the 2nd respondent herein approached the Police with a complaint that the 'Will' is a forged one; and that an investigation has been launched based on it, by registering Crime No. 2201/2019, and charging his client under Ss. 34, 406, 420, and 506, read with Sec. 120(b), of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), arraying him as the 1staccused therein. He says that it transpires that the Investigating Officer - the 1strespondent herein, obtained a certified copy of the 'Will' from the Trial Court and then moved I.A.No.2786/2019, averring that the investigation reveals that said document is forged; and therefore, sought that its original - which had been produced before the said Court - be sent for forensic evaluation. The learned Senior Counsel contended that, even though the application filed by the 1strespondent does not state under what provision the prayers therein have been impelled, the learned Sub Judge allowed it in a mechanical fashion, through Ext.P11 order; and that his client has been, therefore, constrained to approach this Court, through this Original Petition. He then added that his client has, in fact, also moved an application for sending the "Will" in question for forensic examination; and asserted that the learned Trial Judge, therefore, ought not to have considered or allowed the application filed by the Investigating Officer, in the manner as has been recorded in Ext.P11.