This order dismisses a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application for an expert opinion regarding document comparison. The court held that the trial court's decision was sound due to the belated stage and lack of substituted evidence offer by the applicants.
The civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
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 SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2783 OF 2010
O R D E R:
The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs. They filed I.A.No. 341 of 2009 in O.S.No. 55 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Sathupally, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for purposes of sending Ex.B1, a registered sale deed, dated 03.01.1992 said to have been executed by their father in favour of the defendants, for an expert’s opinion, after comparing it with documents Exs.B3 to B6, which are said to be manuscript letters written by the deceased father of the plaintiffs. That Application has been resisted by the respondents. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, while disputing the necessity to send Ex.B1 document for an expert’s opinion, the respondents have specifically pointed out that late Sri Ch. Srirama Murthy executed two sale deeds bearing No. 4570 of 1993 and 5230/93, dated 06.12.1993 in favour of a 3rd party. Those are also registered sale deeds. Consequently, the thumb impressions and signature of Sri Ch. Srirama Murthy are preserved in the records maintained by the Sub-Registrar at Sathupally. Therefore, they have pointed out that they have no objection for summoning the records from the Sub-Registrar, Sathupally with reference to the aforesaid two sale deeds and compare Ex.B1 with them. This counter affidavit in the I.A. has been filed by the respondents as on 22.02.2010. The plaintiffs have nearly two more months available with them before the said I.A. has been decided by the Court. They have not changed their pleadings nor did they file a memo into the Court agreeing for sending Ex.B1 document for examination by an expert along with the two sale deeds referred to supra, after securing the documents from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Sathupally. In those set of circumstances, the trial Court has dismissed the I.A. for two reasons: 1) that the I.A. has been moved at a belated stage, practically during the course of collection of evidence by the parties; 2) that Exs.B3 to B6 are not admitted documents, for drawing any comparison between them and Ex.B1 registered sale deed dated 03.01.1992. The reasons assigned by the Court below are fairly sound. If the plaintiffs have filed a memo for sending the two sale deeds referred to by the respondents/defendants, for the purpose of examination by an
expert, perhaps, things would have been different. Since the plaintiffs have not demonstrated their bona fides and urgency in the matter, it is not an appropriate case where this Court should exercise the revisional jurisdiction to upset the order passed by the trial Court.
Hence, I do not see any merit in this Civil Revision Petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J)
25th November 2011
ksld
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court rightly dismissed the application for expert opinion given the lack of bona fides and urgency by the applicants.
The Plaintiffs
The Defendants
NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
