Civil Revision Petition filed to challenge an order allowing the first respondent to obtain an expert opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act during a suit for specific performance. The High Court found the Lower Court's action procedural and refused interference.
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
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.
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI B.PRAKASH RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4162 OF 2010
ORDER:
The petitioners-defendants 1 and 2 filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking to assail the order dated 01.07.2010 in I.A.No.502 of 2009 in O.S.No.78 of 2000 on the file of the Family Court, Secunderabad, in allowing the petition filed by the first respondent herein under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the documents to APFSL Department for giving opinion.
The grievance of the petitioners is that in a suit for specific performance, the first respondent filed the present petition at the fag end of the trial and the said petition is stated to have been allowed. Hence, the revision.
Having heard on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that the exercise undertook by the Court below is only procedural, which should not normally be interfered with in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, there are no merits in the revision.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
____________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, HACJ)
26th November 2010 RRB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court erred in allowing a petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act sought at the fag end of a suit for specific performance.
Whether the High Court can interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a procedural exercise by the Family Court which is not erroneous.
PETITIONERS-DEFENDANTS 1 AND 2
FIRST RESPONDENT
B. PRAKASH RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
