Allowed

Vasudeva Naidu v. Chandran

Madras HC25 Feb 2015CRP/462/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Subordinate Judge's order dismissing a civil revision petition challenging an interim application. The Court allowed the petitioners to approach the Trial Court to submit documents with admitted signatures for handwriting analysis regarding a sale agreement under a suit for specific performance.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order setting aside the dismissal of the application in O.S. No.8 of 2012 is set aside with liberty to petitioners to approach the Trial Court.

Vasudeva Naidu Vs Chandran — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 25.02.2015

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶6

C.R.P.(PD) NO.462 OF 2015 AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2015

¶7

1.Vasudeva Naidu 2.V.Mohan 3.V.Ramesh ... Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.Chandran 2.Kuppammal 3.Gowri

¶10

4.Damodaran

5.Usharani

6.Arumugam

... Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decreetal order of dismissal dated 17.03.2014 made in I.A.No.65 of 2014 in O.S.No.8 of 2012 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruttani.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Karunagaran

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 17.03.2014 passed in I.A.No.65 of 2014 in O.S.No.8 of 2012 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruttani.

¶19

2.The petitioners filed I.A.No.65 of 2014 in O.S.No.8 of 2012 for

¶20

direction to send the sale agreement dated 18.04.1993 to Forensic Laboratory, Chennai to get opinion from the handwriting expert. The application was resisted by the respondents by filing counter affidavit. The Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioners have not furnished the documents containing the admitted signature to get opinion from the handwriting expert. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶21

3.Mr.R.Karunagaran, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

¶22

that the petitioners are having documents containing the admitted signature of

¶23

the first petitioner and they may be given opportunity to approach the Trial Court to send the documents for getting opinion of the handwriting expert.

¶24

¶25

4.It is seen that the suit was filed for specific performance of the

¶26

sale agreement dated 18.04.1993. The application was dismissed on the only ground that the petitioners have not produced the documents containing the admitted signature of the first petitioner.

¶27

5.In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the order impugned in this Civil Revision Petition is set aside, with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Trial Court. If any such application is filed by the petitioners, the Trial Court shall consider and pass orders on the

¶28

same, on merits and in accordance with law.

¶29

6.This Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶30

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶31

25.02.2015

¶32

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No TK

¶33

¶34

The Subordinate Judge Tiruttani.

¶35

¶36

K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.

¶37

¶38

C.R.P.(PD) NO.462 OF 2015

¶39

25.02.2015

Vasudeva Naidu v. Chandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasudeva Naidu v. Chandran

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

Sakunthala Vs Radhakrishnan

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. Vs Mr.T.Kamaraj

G. Krishanamurthy Vs M.R. Manoharan Died

A.Vallabadoss Vs Devi(Insane)

M/S.Richardson & Cruddas Ltd., Vs Mr.L.Rathina Kumar

G.v.Sudhakar, S/O.G.v.Radha- Vs Audilakshmi, S/O.Radhakrishnan