Disposed

Ganesan v. Alamelu

Madras HC12 Apr 2016CRP/1146/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution as withdrawn. The petitioners sought to challenge a refusal to refer a disputed agreement for sale to a handwriting expert. The court granted liberty to the petitioners to produce original documents and subsequently apply for expert comparison.

What did the court decide?

Directing that the petitioner should be permitted to take steps for producing or summoning the originals and thereafter apply for referring the documents to a handwriting expert for opinion.

Ganesan Vs Alamelu — Partition | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12.04.2016

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

¶6

C.R.P (PD) No.1146 of 2016 &

¶7

C.M.P.No.6302 of 2016

1.Ganesan

2.Varadharajan

3.Loganathan

... Petitioners

vs.

1.Alamelu

2.Karuppiah

3.Selvi @ Tamilselvi

¶16

4.Dhanalakshmi

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal orders in I.A.No.424 of 2015 in O.S.No.96 of 2011 dated 08.01.2016 on the file of Sub-Ordinate Judge, Attur.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kamadevan

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In a suit filed for partition, the defendants made a counter claim for specific enforcement of an agreement for sale allegedly

¶22

¶23

executed by the father of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are resisting the counter claim contending that signature found in the agreement are not that of their father. Under the said circumstances, the defendants filed an application I.A.No.424 of 2015 in O.S.No.96 of 2011 on the file of the trial Court for referring the disputed document to a handwriting expert to be compared with an admitted document and submit his opinion.

¶24

The learned trial Judge, after hearing, dismissed the said petition holding that the original document which is sought to be projected as the document containing the admitted signature of the father of the plaintiffs had not been produced and that hence, there was no chance of referring the said documents to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner, who is not in a position to assail the said reason, submits that the petitioners/defendants may be permitted to take steps for producing or summoning the originals containing the admitted signatures of the father of the plaintiffs and thereafter, apply for referring those documents along with the disputed documents to a handwriting expert for opinion.

¶26

¶27

Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for

¶28

the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition as withdrawn with liberty as indicated supra. An endorsement to that effect has been made and the same is recorded.

¶29

In view of the endorsement made, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty as indicated above is granted. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

12.04.2016

¶31

Index: Yes/No Internet: yes/No gpa

¶32

¶33

The Sub-Ordinate Judge Attur

¶34

¶35

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR.J.,

¶36

gpa

¶37

C.R.P (PD) No.1146 of 2016 & C.M.P.No.6302 of 2016

¶38

12.04.2016

Ganesan v. Alamelu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesan v. Alamelu

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

M. Nanjunda Achari Vs Munikrishnappa

V.Rajaram,S/O.Veerappa Vs v.a.Saraswathi

S.Kalarani Vs B.Dinesh Kumar

A.Asha,W/O.Dr.D.Sathishkumar Vs Dr.D.Sathish Kumar

S Jagadeesan Vs B Dhandapani

Nanjappan Vs Ramasamy