FOUSIA Vs. CHANDANAMPURATH SHEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers in this Original Petition (Civil) filed under the enabling provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows :

(2.) The plea made by the petitioners in I.A. No.2428/2017 filed by them in O.S. No.900/2009 for serving interrogatories on the respondent/defendants has been rejected. The petitioners herein are subsequently plaintiffs 2 to 5 in the above O.S. which has been filed for recovery of money. The respondent herein is the defendant therein. The case of the petitioners/plaintiffs is that they have deposited an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- in a financial institution run by the respondent and that when there is failure to repay the amount, the respondent offered to sell a property belonging to her to the original plaintiff. The original plaintiff agreed to purchase the property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 8,00,000/-. The amount in deposit with the financial institution of the respondent/defendant was treated as advance towards the sale consideration and agreement for sale was drawn accordingly and when the plaintiff did perform her part of the contract, the original plaintiff had instituted the above O.S. seeking for specific performance of the contract and in the alternative for recovery of money. Thereafter, the original plaintiff had instituted the above suit seeking recovery of money, as she found that there is defect in the title of the defendant in respect of the property which was covered by agreement for sale.

(3.) The respondent, by filing written statement, contended that she had executed any agreement for sale and her husband had borrowed a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs from the Original Plaintiff and towards security for the said loan, the respondent had executed a blank cheque and blank stamp papers to the original plaintiff. The agreement for sale is drawn on the said stamp papers. In order to prove the consideration paid by the original plaintiff, the petitioners had produced the details regarding the payments made by the original plaintiff to the financial institution run by the respondent. It is further stated that in the box, the respondent/defendant has denied her handwriting and signature of those documents. Accordingly, the petitioners were constrained to prove their case and requested before the court below to sent the disputed documents which were marked as Exts.A5 to A9 to a forensic expert to compare the handwriting and signature. The said plea was allowed by the court below. The expert made a report to the court below stating that he requires the writing and signatures of the relevant period when Exts.A5 to A9 where drawn in order to facilitate effective comparison. Thereupon the court below had directed the respondent to be present in court which she refused. Accordingly, she was set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed. Later the said ex parte decree was set aside, after condoning the delay for more than a year. Thereafter the petitioners mad Ext.P4 application seeking to serve interrogatories to the respondent. The queries in Ext.P4 application are as follows : VERNACULAR MATTER