This petition challenged an order dismissing an application for typewriter signature comparison under Order XXVI Rule 10A CPC and Section 151 CPC. The High Court held the order was correct as the application was filed belatedly despite prior denials in the written statement and notice exchange, finding no warrant for interference.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.03.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.R.P.(PD)No.990 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
Indumathi .. Petitioner
Vs.
K.Chander Rao .. Respondent
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order dated
24.09.2013 made in I.A.No.225 of 2013 in O.S.No.2 of 2011 on the
file of the Subordinate Court, Vaniyambadi.
For Petitioner : Mr.PA.Sudesh Kumar For Respondent : Mr.M.Premkumar ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal
order dated 24.09.2013 made in I.A.No.225 of 2013 in O.S.No.2 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Vaniyambadi.
2
2.The petitioner is plaintiff and respondent is defendant in O.S.No.2 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Vaniyambadi. The petitioner filed the said suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 20.11.2005. The respondent filed written statement on 05.07.2011 and denied his signature in the agreement of sale. The trial commenced, both the petitioner and respondent let in evidence and closed their side. When the suit was posted for arguments, the petitioner filed I.A.No.225 of 2013 under Order XXVI Rule 10A and Section 151 C.P.C. for comparison of the disputed signature of the respondent in Exs.B1 to B3 with his admitted signature in summons, vakalat, written statement and proof affidavit.
cross-examination, the respondent has stated that without his spectacles, he cannot say whether the signatures in Exs.B1 to B3 are his signatures and prayed for allowing the application.
4.The respondent filed counter affidavit and made various contentions on merits with regard to the evidence let in by the petitioner and also contended that the application filed by the petitioner is belated one.
3
5.The learned Judge considering the averments made in the
affidavit, counter affidavit and the fact that the respondent has denied the agreement of sale during exchange of notice and in the written statement filed on 05.07.2011 itself, dismissed the application holding that the petitioner has not filed present application at the earliest.
6.Against the said order of dismissal dated 24.09.2013 made
in I.A.No.225 of 2013 in O.S.No.2 of 2011, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner.
7.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
8.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has filed application as the respondent did not
admit his signatures in Exs.B1 to B3 during cross-examination, which necessitated the petitioner for coming out with the present application and also contended that there is no delay in filing the
application. The said contentions are without merits. From the impugned order of the learned Judge, it is seen that not only in the
4
written statement, but also in the exchange of notice, the respondent has denied his signature in the agreement of sale. The written statement was filed on 05.07.2011 itself. But the petitioner has not taken any steps for comparison of the disputed signature of
the respondent with his admitted signature till completion of trial
and filed the present application only at the time of arguments.
9.The learned Judge has considered all the facts in proper perspective and dismissed the application by giving cogent and valid reason. There is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court with the order of the learned Judge dated 24.09.2013.
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Index:Yes/No kj To
The Subordinate Judge, Vaniyambadi.
5
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
kj
C.R.P.(PD)No.990 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
27.03.2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should interfere with the impugned order dismissing the application for comparison of signatures due t
Whether the High Court can find illegality or irregularity in the learned Judge's dismissal of the application given that the denial was made in the written statement and exchange of notice.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Indumathi
K. Chander Rao
V.M. Velumani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
