Remanded

K. Ananda Reddy v. Smt. T. Arathi

Telangana HC11 Mar 2011CRP/4822/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court remanded a civil revision petition. The court set aside the lower court's order dismissing an application for a handwriting expert as it failed to provide justification for exercising its discretion, mandating fresh consideration within three months.

What did the court decide?

Order of Senior Civil Judge dismissing the application was set aside and matter remanded to be considered afresh within three months.

K. Ananda Reddy Vs Smt. T. Arathi — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4822 of 2008

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur in I.A. No.410 of 2008 in O.S. No.37 of 2004 dated 09.09.2008.

¶4

I.A. No.410 of 2008 was filed, by the petitioner-defendant Nos.1 and 2, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send Ex.B-7 relinquishment deed dated 25.05.1994 to a hand writing expert, for comparison of the signature of the executant of the document with that of the admitted signatures and the signatures obtained in open Court, to arrive at a proper conclusion and to prove the said document.

¶5

The Court below observed that the unregistered relinquishment deed dated 25.05.1994 was marked as Ex.B7 on 04.04.2008; the petition filed by the 1^st defendant was after a lapse of two years from the date of filing of his chief examination on 17.03.2004; this Court had passed orders in C.R.P. No.1916 of 2006 dated 06.06.2006 holding that the said unregistered relinquishment deed dated 25.05.1994 was inadmissible in evidence and it was a different thing that it could be relied upon for collateral purpose; in view of the judgments of this Court in Kaveti Sarada v. Vemineni Hymavathi^[1] and Renu Devi Kedia v. Seetha Devi^[2] there were no bonafides in the petition filed by the petitioner-defendant Nos.1 and 2; and the petition was liable to be dismissed.

¶6

Before this Court Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that an application, to have a document sent for examination by a hand writing expert, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act could be filed at any stage and could not be dismissed on the ground of delay; it was desirable that the Court should send the document to an expert for comparison and his opinion; where the crucial issue related to the very document in question the Court ought to exercise its discretion judiciously; and the opinion of the expert would help the Court give a quietus to the entire dispute. Learned Counsel would rely on Medikonda Rama Swarajyalakshmi v. Posina Sathyanarayan a^[3] Nookala Sridevi v. D. Krishnarjuna Ra o^[4] a n d Ghulam Ghouse v. Madarse Jeelania Shama-Ul-Uloom Education Societ y^[5] in this regard.

¶7

On the other hand, Sri K.S. Gopalakrishnan, Learned Counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs, would submit that referring a document for examination by a handwriting expert could not be ordered as a matter of course, the question whether or not such a document should be sent for examination by an expert were matters which were within the discretion of the Court adjudicating the Suit; and, since the Court below had exercised its discretion not to send the document in question for verification by a handwriting expert, no interference was called for in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel would rely on Kaveti Sarada¹ and Renu Devi Kedia² in this regard.

¶8

Whether a document should or should not be referred for examination by a hand writing expert is no doubt a matter of discretion, and it is not necessary that in each and every case the Court should refer a disputed document for examination by a hand writing expert. The discretion exercised by the Court below must, however, be in accordance with law and for just and valid reasons. The reasons for refusing to exercise discretion to refer the document for examination by a hand writing expert must be discernable from the order. Except to state that there were no bonafides in the petition filed for referring the document to a hand writing expert, the Court below has not assigned any reasons as to why the document in question should or should not be referred for examination by a hand writing expert.

¶9

I consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to set aside the order under revision and remand the matter back for consideration of the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Puttur. The Learned Senior Civil Judge, after hearing both parties and in the light of the judicial pronouncements aforementioned, shall pass orders afresh on the application filed in I.A. No.410 of 2008 in O.S. No.37 of 2004 in accordance with law. The entire exercise, culminating in an order being passed, shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶10

Date: 08.07.2010 MRKR

¶11

____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J

¶12

[1] 2006(4) ALD 460 [2] 2004(5) ALD 700 [3] 1999(1) ALD 210

¶13

[4] 2005(5) ALT 10

¶14

[5] 2007(4) ALD 435

K. Ananda Reddy v. Smt. T. Arathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Ananda Reddy v. Smt. T. Arathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. Ramulu, Vs The A.P. Transmission Corporation Ltd.

Veera Vaishnavi Granites, Vs The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests

Mr.S.P.John Wesley Vs The Commissioner and Director of Intermediate Education

P. John Britto, Vs The District Registrar

Sri Piliki Annavaram Vs Piliki Lakshamana Reddy

D.Venugopala Swamy, Vs The Vice Chairman and Manging Director