REVATION petition challenging dismissal of an order refusing leave to refer a diary to an expert for handwriting verification. The High Court found no illegality in the trial court's observation that the diary entries did not assist the suit for partition.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; interlocutory applications pending shall stand closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2543 of 2019
ORDER :
Challenge in the Civil Revision Petition is to the order dated 31.07.2019 in I.A.No.778 of 2019 in O.S.No.1310 of 2014 passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam dismissing the petition filed under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act by the plaintiff praying to send the sheet of diary containing entries made by PW-5 – Sri D.A. Naidu under his signature dated 17.12.2012 to an expert to give his opinion regarding authenticity of handwriting and signature of Sri D.A. Naidu.
2
UDPR,J CRP No.2543 of 2019
purchased by them at Anjanadri Colony, Visakhapatnam, the plaintiff contributed Rs.5,00,000/- by borrowing the amount from third parties and the defendants agreed to give him half share. The defendants, accordingly, constructed a building consisting of three portions in ground floor and three portions in the first floor. The defendants have let out five portions and are residing in one portion. The plaintiff is therefore, entitled to half share in the plaint schedule property.
3
UDPR,J CRP No.2543 of 2019
Hence the Civil Revision Petition.
4
UDPR,J CRP No.2543 of 2019
presented to the defendants and noted down by the PW-5 is accepted to be true for arguments sake, still that fact will not assist the trial court to adjudicate the suit. Therefore, in my view, the trial court rightly dismissed the petition. I find no merits in the Civil Revision Petition. Accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J
17th March, 2021 krk
5
UDPR,J CRP No.2543 of 2019
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2543 of 2019
17th March, 2021
krk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner is entitled to refer a diary sheet to an expert for handwriting verification when the contents do not assist adjudication of the suit.
Whether dismissal of a petition for expert opinion under Section 45 Indian Evidence Act amounts to illegality or irregularity when the underlying facts are not in dispute.
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
