The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's refusal to reopen a partition suit and send contested parties to a handwriting expert. The court held there were no grounds to interfere as the suit was at the stage of arguments.
Civil Revision Petition No. 1174 of 2011 dismissed. No costs awarded to the petitioner.
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 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
Civil Revision Petition No. 1174 of 2011
ORDER:
This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.02.2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Piler, Chittoor District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 369 of 2009 in O.S. No. 21 of 2005 filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, praying to re-open the suit and permit her to file petition to send Ex.B1 and document No.298/1989 registered by S.R.O., Piler, to handwriting expert, for the purpose of comparison of the signatures of the deceased M. Krishna Reddy.
The petitioner-plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendants, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The defendants filed their written statement, resisting the suit, and they relied on a will dated 09.12.2001 said to have been executed by one late
M. Krishna Reddy, the husband of the plaintiff. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a rejoinder stating that her husband late M. Krishna Reddy never executed the said will dated 09.12.2001 in favour of defendants 1 and 2 and the said document is a forged document. To prove her contention that the said will dated 09.12.2001, which has been got marked by the defendants as Ex.B1, is a forged document, the petitioner-plaintiff filed the present application, seeking the Court below to send Ex.B1 to handwriting expert for the purpose of comparing the signature of her husband late M. Krishna Reddy, available on it, with that of his signature available on the registered document No.298/1989. The defendants 1 and 2 filed counter to the present application, resisting the claim of the petitioner-plaintiff. The Court below, having considered the stand of the parties, dismissed the petition, by the order under revision.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and perused the order under revision.
As can be seen from the record, the defendants 1 and 2 relied on Ex.B1 document and it is their stand that it was executed by the husband of the petitionerplaintiff in their favour. The petitioner-plaintiff denied their stand and alleged that Ex.B1 is a forged document. If it is the case of the petitioner that Ex.B1 is a fabricated document, she should have filed the present application along with rejoinder, which she did not do, and kept quiet till the trial is over, and has filed this application at the stage when the case is coming up for arguments. No doubt, the petitioner in her rejoinder has taken a plea that the will dated 09.12.2001 is a forged and fabricated document, but no issue has been framed in that regard. This apart,
the registered document No.298/1989, which the petitioner-plaintiff wants to be sent to the handwriting expert, for comparison of the signature on Ex.B1, is not an admitted one. The Court below, having taken note of these facts, has dismissed the present petition by reason of the order under revision, and I see no grounds to interfere with the same, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, particularly, when the suit is at the stage of arguments.
The civil revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
Dated: 25th November, 2011.
IBL
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's dismissal of an application to reopen a suit and send disputed parties for handwriting comparison while arguments are pending.
Whether the petitioner's failure to raise the forgery plea earlier at the time of filing the rejoinder precludes this application.
Whether a registered document intended for comparison is an admitted document in the suit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner-Plaintiff
Respondent 1
Respondent 2
N.V. Ramana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
