Revision petitions filed against an order appointing a forensic expert to examine a disputed signature. The High Court found no illegality in the trial court's exercise of discretion but directed the trial to conclude within six weeks.
The revision petitions are dismissed; the trial court is directed to dispose of the matter within six weeks.
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.
C.M.P.(MD)No.6044 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 30.11.2020
CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.927 and 928 of 2020 and
C.M.P.(MD)No.6044 of 2020
In both petitions:
1.E.R.Sellammal
2.Dinesh Roobak ... Petitioner/Defendants
-Vs-
C.Rajasekaran
..Respondent/Plaintiff
COMMON PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order passed by the learned Sub Judge, Lalgudi in I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2019 in O.S.No.264 of 2018, dated 12.02.2020.
In both petitions: For Petitioner : Mr.J.Madhu
C O M M O N O R D E R
These Revision Petitions are filed by the defendant in O.S.No.264 of 2018, challenging the order of the trial Court passed in I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2019 directing reopening the case and appointing a Commission for expert opinion to file a report on the genuineness of the signature of the plaintiff in the sale agreement.
2.The plaintiff has laid a suit for specific performance based on a sale agreement dated 11.10.2012 alleged to have been executed by the respondent/defendant. In his written statement, the defendant has pleaded that the signature in the sale agreement is forged. The trial of the case was completed and the matter was posted for final arguments, when the plaintiff came up with an application for reopening the case and another for appointing an expert for comparing the signature of the defendant in the sale agreement with his admitted signature. As the defendant has taken strong objections to it on the ground that the plaintiff ought to have taken it before trial, and that the Court itself has power to compare the signature under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. After considering the rival submissions, the trial Court allowed these applications.
1/2
C.M.P.(MD)No.6044 of 2020
3.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. It was argued by the respondent that when once the written statement is filed alleging that the signature in the sale agreement is forged, the duty of the plaintiff commences forthwith. He also added that the defendants are put in much inconvenience due to considerable delay in the disposal of the case.
// True Copy //
/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
Cm/ta
To
The Sub Judge, Lalgudi.
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.927 and 928 of 2020 and C.M.P.(MD)No.6044 of 2020 30.11.2020
AC(CO) KM (17.12.2020) 2P 2C
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court acted illegally in appointing a commission to examine the genuineness of the signature after the trial was substantially completed.
E.R.Sellammal and others
C.Rajasekaran
N.Seshasayee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
