Judgment:
JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU Â : PRESIDENT
The revision petitioner is the opposite party in CC.33/07 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The order sought to be revised in the one issued in IA 326/11 filed by the revision petitioner/opposite party for getting the disputed documents sent for expert opinion . The Forum has dismissed the above IA on the ground that when the complainant sought for sending the above documents for expert opinion the same was vehemently opposed by the revision petitioner.
2. It is further stated in the revision petition that the Forum has refused to mark the above documents in evidence on the ground that the genuineness is disputed.
3. We find that with respect to order in IA.326/11 it cannot be said to be that the Forum has erred in dismissing the application to send the document for expert opinion in view of the fact that the revision petitioner had opposed the application filed by the complainant before the Forum for sending the document for expert opinion. All the same we find that if the case of revision petitioner that the Forum is refusing to admit the documents in evidence the same cannot be approved. Revision petitioner is directed to file an application for getting the documents marked and the Forum is to consider the same and gave appropriate orders as such. We find that there can be no legal objection in marking the document and considering the genuineness of the same in the light of the evidence adduced. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
Office will forward the copy of this order to the Forum.