FORGERY = Even where a document is sent for examination by an expert, the opinion is only persuasive in nature and it cannot be treated as final. If the opinion suffers from any lacunae, the concerned party can certainly point out the same. Ultimately, it is for the trial Court to satisfy itself as to whether the plea as to forgery or discrepancy is substantiated.; second opinion of expert on finger print = not only the expert rendered his opinion, but also the he was subjected to elaborate cross-examination. The matter must rest at that. The petitioner wanted the same document to be sent to another expert. It is only when the opinion expressed by the expert is set aside or found fault with, for any specified reasons, that the occasion may arise for repeating the exercise. The facts of the present case do not permit of such an effort. Therefore, civil revision petition is dismissed.


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY 
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.58 OF 2013
ORDER:
          The petitioner and respondent No.18 filed O.S.No.10 of 1994 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle against respondents 1 to 17 herein for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties, which are said to be agricultural lands.  On behalf of the contesting defendants, a plea was raised to the effect that the father of the petitioner executed a will, marked as Ex.B.12 in their favour.  
Suspecting the genuinity of that will, the petitioner filed I.A.No.554 of 2004 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act with a request to send the document for the opinion of an expert. The I.A. was allowed and the expert rendered his opinion, to the effect that the signature and the thumb impression on the disputed document tally with those on the admitted documents.  The expert was also examined as D.W.1 and his opinion was made part of the record as Ex.X.1. 
          The petitioner filed I.A.No.494 of 2011 under Order 26 Rule 10 C.P.C. with a prayer to send the document for the opinion of a Government Finger Print Expert.  The application was opposed by the contesting defendants.  The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through its order, dated 09.10.2012.  Hence, this revision.
          Heard Sri N.Pramod, learned counsel for the petitioner.
          On the face of it, the I.A. filed by the petitioner was untenable, if not frivolous.  
Even where a document is sent for examination by an expert, the opinion is only persuasive in nature and it cannot be treated as final.  
If the opinion suffers from any lacunae, the concerned party can certainly point out the same.  
Ultimately, it is for the trial Court to satisfy itself as to whether the plea as to forgery or discrepancy is substantiated.
          In the instant case, 
not only the expert rendered his opinion, but also the he was subjected to elaborate cross-examination. 
The matter must rest at that.  
The petitioner wanted the same document to be sent to another expert.  It is only when the opinion expressed by the expert is set aside or found fault with, for any specified reasons, that the occasion may arise for repeating the exercise.  
The facts of the present case do not permit of such an effort.
          Therefore, civil revision petition is dismissed.
          The Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed in this Civil Revision Petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________

L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J

Date: 08.02.2013

JSU


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY 













CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.58 OF 2013



Date: 08.02.2013

JSU


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.