Defendant Not permitted to say that the plaintiff signatures of Plaintiff are forged , being an octogenarian might not properly recognize the signature due to loss of sight = The petitioner filed a petition under Order 26 Rule 10-A of Civil Procedure Code r/w Section 45 of the Evidence Act, stating that the respondent-plaintiff refused to file the suit against the petitioner, and it is the sons of the respondent-plaintiff who have forged the signature of the plaintiff on the plaint and filed the suit. And hence, the petitioner prayed the Court below to send the admitted signature of the plaintiff on Ex.B1 along with the signature on the plaint for expert comparison. The trial Court dismissed the application by observing that the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and she categorically stated that she filed the suit against the petitioner-defendant. The trial Court further observed that the plaintiff being a lady aged 82 years, might not recognize her signature but her cross examination supports her pleadings in the plaint, and as the suit is at the stage of arguments, the defendant cannot question that the plaintiff has not filed suit against him.


CRP 688 / 2016
CRPSR 10 / 2016CASE IS:DISPOSED
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
SMT B NIRMALA, HYDERABAD  VSSMT. BASANI RADHAMMA, WARANGAL DIST & 2 OTHERS
PET.ADV. : PALLA DAMODAR REDDYRESP.ADV. : 
SUBJECT: ARTICLE 227DISTRICT:  HYDERABAD


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 688 of 2016
ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 05.07.2011 passed by the XIII Additional Chief Judge, Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No.431 of 2011 in O.S.No.319 of 2006. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit.
2. Heard.
3. The petitioner filed a petition under Order 26 Rule 10-A of Civil Procedure Code r/w Section 45 of the Evidence Act, stating that the respondent-plaintiff refused to file the suit against the petitioner, and it is the sons of the respondent-plaintiff who have forged the signature of the plaintiff on the plaint and filed the suit. And hence, the petitioner prayed the Court below to send the admitted signature of the plaintiff on Ex.B1 along with the signature on the plaint for expert comparison. The trial Court dismissed the application by observing that the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and she categorically stated that she filed the suit against the petitioner-defendant. The trial Court further observed that the plaintiff being a lady aged 82 years, might not recognize her signature but her cross examination supports her pleadings in the plaint, and as the suit is at the stage of arguments, the defendant cannot question that the plaintiff has not filed suit against him.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that the trial Court erred in dismissing the I.A., inasmuch as the signatures on the plaint are forged signatures and the signature are not of the plaintiff’s and the Court below ought to have sent her admitted signatures on Ex.B1 along with the signatures on the plaint for expert comparison.
5. Admittedly, the plaintiff was examined as PW1. She deposed to the contents and pleadings in the plaint and she categorically stated that she filed the suit against the defendant. As rightly observed by the Court below, the plaintiff, being an octogenarian might not properly recognize the signature due to loss of sight but the fact remains that she did not deny the pleadings in the plaint and the cross examination clearly supported the pleadings in the plaint and she also deposed that she filed the suit against the defendant. The suit is of the year 2006 and the suit is at the stage of arguments. The order under challenge is of the year 2011. When the suit is at the stage of arguments, more particularly when the plaintiff categorically stated that she filed the suit against the petitioner-defendant, the petitioner cannot take a plea that the signatures on the plaint are forged signatures and they should be sent for comparison with the admitted signature of the plaintiff on Ex.B1.
6. In that view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
7. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH 26 th February, 2016 ksm THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 688 of 2016 26 th February, 2016 ksm

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.