P R DANAVAN Vs. LEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Review Petition filed by the plaintiff in O.S.1261/2013 before the learned Prl.Munsiff, Ernakulam was allowed by the impugned order dated 20.10.2015. Aggrieved by the said order on I.A. No. 6341/2014, the defendant in the suit has filed this O.P. invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) In plaintiff's suit for injunction and other reliefs, an agreement dated 16.8.2013 the execution of which the defendant also admits was produced by her in the court. The defendant had taken a contention that the rights of the plaintiff in respect of the property were settled with her receiving Rs.6 lakhs and the receipt of the same was endorsed over the reverse side of the aforesaid agreement. The plaintiff disputed the receipt of the amount and contended that it was a forged entry as if she has not put her signature at all. This led to her seeking for an order to send the disputed endorsement in the said agreement for the opinion of a handwriting expert attached to the Forensic Laboratory, Thriuvananathapuram. I.A.9482/2014 filed by her for the said purpose was allowed by the learned Munsiff and by the same order she was directed to be present in open court to give her specimen signature for the scrutiny of the expert.

(3.) The plaintiff seems to be aggrieved by the direction for her presence in court and giving of specimen signature. She therefore sought the order on I.A.9482/2014 to be reviewed and to relieve her from the direction to appear and give specimen signature in the court. The learned Munsiff accepted her plea for review and her presence was dispensed with. The defendant being aggrieved by the impugned order reviewing the earlier order of the Munsiff, challenges the same before me .