sending the alleged suit agreement to handwriting expert for comparison of their admitted signatures with that contained on the suit document. before framing of issues - is maintainable - When the genuineness of a document is in serious dispute, it is desirable that such document is examined by an expert and an opinion given thereon to aid the Court to come to a right conclusion. Though Section 73 of the Act vests power in the Court to compare the disputed signatures or writings, the preponderance of judicial opinion is to the effect that it is always desirable to seek an expert's opinion though eventually the opinion of the Court which is final. In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the order of the Court below in allowing the I.A. filed by the respondents. However, in the light of the apprehension expressed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit may be delayed in the process of obtaining expert's opinion, she can move the Court below for expediting the process of obtaining expert's opinion.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY          

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1226 OF 2017    

10-03-2017
       
Pabolu Prameela Rani, W/o Anjaneyulu, 30 years, R/o D.No. 12-21-5/1,
Seetanagaram, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam--Petitioner  

Bogi Prasanthi, W/o Srinivasa, 33 years, R/o D.No. 9-7-11, High School Road,
Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, and anotherRespondents    


Counsel for the petitioner      :       Smt. B.V.Aparna Lakshmi

Counsel for the respondents     :       --

<GIST :

>HEAD NOTE :  

?Cases referred :


ORDER:
      This civil revision petition arises out of order dated 06-01-2017 in
I.A.No.
713 of 2016 in O.S.No. 46 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil
Judge,
Gajuwaka (for short, 'the Court below').
2.      I have heard Smt. B.V.Aparna Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner,
and perused the record.
3.      The petitioner filed the aforementioned suit for permanent injunction
restraining the respondents from alienating plaint C schedule property to third
parties without offering the same to her at the first instance as per the pre-
emption clause in agreement dated 08-11-2013 allegedly entered between 
herself and the respondents.  The respondents filed a written statement, wherein
it is inter alia averred that they have not entered into any agreement much less
agreement dated 08-11-2013 and the said agreement is a fabricated document 
with an intention to grab the property.  It is further alleged that the
petitioner
might have created the said document with forged signatures of the respondents.
It is further stated that the respondents are ready to send the alleged
agreement 
to handwriting expert.  As pleaded by them in the written statement, the
respondents have filed I.A.No. 713 of 2016 under Section 45 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, 'the Act'), read with Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure for sending the alleged suit agreement to handwriting expert for
comparison of their admitted signatures with that contained on the suit
document.  The petitioner filed a counter affidavit opposing the said
application.
However, by the order under revision the Court below has allowed the I.A.
4.      During hearing when a query is put to the learned counsel for the
petitioner as to how her client is prejudiced against the order of the Court
below,
she has failed to give satisfactory reply except stating that the process of
obtaining expert's opinion will consume substantial time.  I am wholly
unconvinced with this reply because as the very basis on which the petitioner
has made her claim was the suit agreement and the respondents are seriously
disputing its genuineness, it is in the petitioner's own interest to obtain an
expert's opinion on the suit agreement so that if she has a genuine case, she
will
succeed on expert's opinion.  In other words, the job which the petitioner was
expected to undertake is being carried out by the respondents.  When the
genuineness of a document is in serious dispute, it is desirable that such
document is examined by an expert and an opinion given thereon to aid the
Court to come to a right conclusion.  Though Section 73 of the Act vests power
in
the Court to compare the disputed signatures or writings, the preponderance of
judicial opinion is to the effect that it is always desirable to seek an
expert's
opinion though eventually the opinion of the Court which is final.  In the light
of
the above discussion, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the order of the
Court below in allowing the I.A. filed by the respondents.  However, in the
light of
the apprehension expressed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit
may be delayed in the process of obtaining expert's opinion, she can move the
Court below for expediting the process of obtaining expert's opinion.
5.      Subject to the liberty given to the petitioner above, the civil revision
petition is dismissed.
6.      As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.
1641
of 2017 shall stand dismissed as infructuous.
_________________________  
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.    
Date: 10-03-2017

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.

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.

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