Madurai Bench allowed a Civil Revision Petition against the dismissal of an application to send an adoption deed and thumb impressions to an expert for comparison, holding the lower court's reliance on a now-quashed criminal case was erroneous.
Civil Revision Petition allowed; Impugned order dated 14.02.2019 in I.A.No.159 of 2017 allowed.
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.R.P.(MD).No.900 of 2019
-BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.900 of 2019 and
C.M.P(MD) No.5230 of 2019
... Petitioners/Petitioners/Defendants 1 and 2
-vs-
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 14.02.2019 made in I.A.No.159 of 2017 in O.S.No.60 of 2012 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Madurai.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Gandhi Senior counsel for Mr.J.Karthikeyan
For Respondents : No appearance
1/7
C.R.P.(MD).No.900 of 2019
O R D E R
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 14.02.2019 made in I.A.No.159 of 2017 in O.S.No.60 of 2012 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Madurai.
2. The petitioners herein are the petitioners/defendants 1 and 2, and the respondents herein are the respondents/plaintiffs before the Court below.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per the litigative status before the trial Court.
4. The short facts which give rise to the instant Civil Revision Petition are that, the respondents/plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S.No.60 of 2012 for the relief of declaration to declare that the Adoption Deed dated 18.11.2002 is null and void as it was a result of the fabrication and impersonation. It appears that during the pendency of the said suit and after cross-examination of P.W.1, the petitioners/defendants have filed an application to send for the disputed Adoption deed dated 18.11.2002 to the handwriting expert to
2/7
C.R.P.(MD).No.900 of 2019
compare the Adoption Deed along with the admitted thumb impression of the respondents/plaintiffs. The said application was dismissed by the Court below with the finding that there was a criminal case pending and that the respondents can prove their case by producing documentary evidence. Aggrieved with the order, the defendants have come before this Court in the present Civil Revision Petition.
5. Despite the names of the respondents are printed in the cause list, no one appeared before this Court on behalf of them.
6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/ defendants 1 and 2 would contend that during the cross examination of the plaintiffs, he has denied the execution of the settlement deed, therefore if the settlement deed is sent for a handwriting expert to compare with the admitted signature of the plaintiffs, the entire issue could be sorted out without any oral evidence, and he would further submit that the finding of the Court below about the pendency of the criminal case and about the proof of the matter by producing the documentary evidence, is based upon misconceptions.
3/7
C.R.P.(MD).No.900 of 2019
7. This Court has given it's anxious consideration to the submission of
the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners.
8. The sum and substance of the instant Civil Revision Petition is, whether the document which is challenged by the petitioners herein could be sent for the comparison of thumb impression before the handwriting expert or not. In this regard, the Court below has rejected the application on the ground that the said application has been moved belatedly, and that too, during the cross examination of the P.W.1. However, on perusal of the deposition of P.W. 1, it is seen that P.W.1, even while showing the document, denied the execution of the said document and stated that the disputed document is fabricated one and result of the impersonation. Only at that stage, the petitioners had come with the instant application.
9. The fact and issue is only in respect of the execution of the Adoption Deed. When the party to the document is denying the thumb impression found in the adoption deed, though the same can be proved by examining the attestors and the scribes, nothing wrong in sending the document for comparison of thumb impression along with the admitted thumb impression
4/7
C.R.P.(MD).No.900 of 2019
of the respondents herein. However, the Court below on the finding of that pendency of the criminal case in respect of the impersonation, ultimately, dismissed the application.
10. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel invited the attention of this Court to the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17087 of 2016, and would submit that the criminal case, which the Court below referred to in the order, has already been quashed, on 15.03.2017. Therefore, upon the subsequent quash of the criminal case and upon the own merits, as dismissed herein above, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the Court below is liable to be interfered with.
23.08.2023
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ebsi
5/7
C.R.P.(MD).No.900 of 2019
To
6/7
C.R.P.(MD).No.900 of 2019
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
ebsi
C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.900 of 2019
23.08.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the civil court can permit comparison of thumb impressions on an adoption deed when a party denies execution despite a pending criminal case.
Whether the civil order dismissing such application is maintainable if the underlying criminal case has been quashed by a superior court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17087 of 2016Referred¶42
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anwar Ali Khan
Jawahar Anwar Ali Khan
Abubakar Sithick
Shaheera Mehaboob
C. Kumarappan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
