Allowed

Raja Ramadevi v. Chavala Adilakshmi

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Dec 2022CRP/5684/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed revision petitions challenging dismissal of interim applications for forensic comparison of signatures and production of documents. The bench set aside the lower court's order citing laches, directing the trial court to order handwriting expert opinion and dispose of the partition suit expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dismissing interim applications set aside; petitions allowed; direction to trial court to order handwriting comparison at FSL and expedite suit disposal.

Raja Ramadevi Vs Chavala Adilakshmi — Specific Performance | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

¶2

Civil Revision Petition Nos. 5662 & 5684 of 2018

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

These two revision petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are filed challenging the order, dated 11.09.2018, dismissing IA Nos. 567 of 2018 and 566 of 2018 in O.S No.50 of 2012 on the file of the Court of X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narsapur.

¶5

I.A.No.567 of 2018 is filed by the plaintiff under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC

¶6

to issue summons to (i) Secretary, PACCS, Lakshmaneswaram, for producing the loan register and other documents pertaining to late Chavala Kondayya borrowed in the year 2003; and (ii) The Sub-Registrar, Narsapur, to produce the signatures of Chavala Kondayya in favour of K. Jesudas on 18.05.1996.

¶7

I.A.No.566 of 2018 is filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, to send the Will, dated 27.11.1997 and receipt dated 18.06.2003 to an expert for comparison of the signatures thereon with the admitted signatures of lat Kondayya.

¶8

2 . Heard Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri P.A.Seshu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff in both the revisions. Though notice is served on respondents 1 to 5, there is no appearance. Notice sent to respondent No.6 to the address as mentioned in

¶9

the proceedings before the trial Court is not yet returned. Notice on respondent No.7 is permitted to be served though substituted service, by way

¶10

¶11

BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.5662 & 5684 of 2018

¶12

of paper publication, vide orders of this Court, dated 27.02.2020, passed in I.A.No.1 of 2020. Service of notices on behalf of respondent Nos.6 & 7 is sufficient.

¶13

3 . The plaintiff filed suit for partition. The defendants opposed the suit denying that the schedule properties are the absolute properties of Chavala Kondayya as false. After completion of the evidence of the plaintiff and the defendants, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.566 of 2018 on the ground that the signatures of the Chavala Kondayya are required for the purpose of comparison with the disputed signatures on the Will, dated 27.11.1997, marked as Ex. B1 and also the receipt, dated 18.06.2003, marked as Ex. B20. Hence, the Will, dated 27.11.1997, (Ex. B1) and the receipt, dated 18.06.2003 (B20) are to be sent to an expert for opinion. I.A.No.567 of 2018 is filed to issue summons to the Secretary, PACCS, Lakshmaneswaram and the SubRegistrar, Narsapur, to produce the loan register and other documents containing the signatures of Chavala Kondayya.

¶14

¶15

None of the respondents choose to file counter.

¶16

5 . After hearing the learned counsel for both parties, the trial Court

¶17

dismissed both petitions observing that the suit is one of the oldest matters on the file of the said Court and that there is an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the petitions at the stage of arguments and further that the petitioner has no bona fides in filing the petitions.

¶18

¶19

BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.5662 & 5684 of 2018

¶20

6 . Having been aggrieved by the orders of dismissal, the petitioner/plaintiff filed these revision petitions contending that the delay in filing petitions cannot be attributed to the petitioner since these documents were filed long after filing of this suit. In this regard, it is contended that exhibit B1 was filed along with a petition in IA No. 256 of 2016 which was allowed on 20.06.2017 and whereas Ex.B20 was filed along with IA No. 153 of 2018 which was allowed on 29.03.2018, and therefore, they came to be filed only on the dates on which the petitions were allowed and whereas the present petitions were filed shortly thereafter in July 2018 itself. Learned counsel further submitted that unless these documents are put to witnesses and they deny the signatures, it may not be possible to get the opinion of an expert.

¶21

7 . As rightly contended by the revision petitioner, the trial Court has not noticed the fact that both documents were filed very long subsequent to the institution of the suit and filing the written statement and till such time, the petitioner has no opportunity to get the opinion of the handwriting expert. Within a few months after their receipt on record and placing in evidence, the petitioner has filed both these petitions without any further delay. Therefore no laches or mala fides can be attributed to the petitioner. As such, merely because the case is an identified one being old matter, it cannot be a hurdle to grant the relief which is otherwise justified, particularly in this case, when there are no laches on the part of the petitioner for want of documents on file, though the pleadings were available very long back. Further, the trial

¶22

¶23

BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.5662 & 5684 of 2018

¶24

Court has erroneously observed that the petitioner has not filed any admitted signatures of Chavala Kondayya, though the trial Court has disposed of IA No.567 of 2018 which was filed to call for the documents containing his signatures along with IA No.566 of 2018 on the same date. Thus, the orders impugned are liable to be set aside.

¶25

8 . Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed setting aside the order, dated 11.09.2018, passed in I.A.Nos.567 of 2018 & 566 of 2018 and allowing the said petitions. The trial Court is directed to send the disputed documents exhibits B1 and B20 to a handwriting expert of Government Forensic Science Laboratory, along with the documents summoned, on deposit of amount for meeting necessary expenses to get the opinion as the trial Court directs the petitioner, for the purpose of comparison and opinion and to submit a report at an early date, and thereafter, dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. For that purpose the trial Court must also endeavour to receive the documents summoned without any further delay.

¶26

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶28

____________________ B S BHANUMATHI, J.

¶29

20.12.2022 MVK/RAR

Raja Ramadevi v. Chavala Adilakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja Ramadevi v. Chavala Adilakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

PulletikurthiNarayana Murthy, and 2 others Vs PulletikurthiRamu at Ramulu, and 3 others

d kannaiah (died) Vs p neelamma

Sri. Munavath Jayaram Naik, Vs Smt. Munavatha Sri Usha

C Ns Kumar Vs H B C Sekhar

M. Hemanth Kumar Vs A.S. Nandeesh

B K Vijaya Kumari (Died) Vs M Adhusudhan