Allowed

Pabisetty Sreerangaiah Setty ( Died ) v. Pabisetti Nagaraju Gupta

Telangana HC4 Apr 2013CRP/952/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil revision petition challenges the trial court's dismissal of a request for expert opinion on a relinquishment deed. The High Court held that admitted signatures and court-taken thumb impressions could be used for comparison and set aside the impugned order, remitting the matter for forensic examination.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside. Court below directed to send admitted signatures and court-taken thumb impressions for expert comparison within four weeks.

Pabisetty Sreerangaiah Setty ( Died ) Vs Pabisetti Nagaraju Gupta — Partition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.952 of 2013

¶3

Dt:- 04.04.2013

¶4

Between:-

¶5

Pabisettty Sreerangaiah Setty (Died) and another … Petitioners and Pabisetti Nagaraju Gupta … Respondent

¶6

This Court made the following:-

¶7

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.952 of 2013

¶8

ORDER: -

¶9

The petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.23 of 2005 filed for partition. The controversy, so far as this revision petition is concerned, centers round the registered relinquishment deed said to have been executed by the plaintiff relinquishing his claim in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the joint family properties. The said document is marked as Ex.B3. During the trial, petitioners/defendants sought to send Ex.B3 for comparison of signatures and thumb impressions to the expert. That application was allowed by the trial court on 11.12.2009 and the said order was confirmed by this court in C.R.P.No.44 of 2010 by order, dated 04.03.2011. However, when the documents were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory of the State, under its Director’s communication, dated 10.11.2011, the Court below was informed that standard signatures of the plaintiff taken in the Court for the purpose of comparison were found insufficient and as such a request was made to send contemporaneous admitted signatures of the plaintiff. So far as examination of finger prints is concerned, it was informed that the said examination has to be done by finger print bureau by sending the

¶10

disputed finger prints to that Laboratory. Petitioners thereafter tried, but could not get any contemporaneous document executed by the executant of Ex.B3. Thereupon, the Court below dismissed the petitioners’ application. Against which, petitioners filed C.R.P.No.3399 of 2012, which was, however, allowed by this Court by order, dated 30.07.2012, permitting the petitioners to produce the document before the trial court and one opportunity therefor was granted. It, however, appears that the petitioner could not get the contemporaneous document and, therefore, filed a memo before the Court below that to the extent of comparison of finger print impressions the document is sent to the bureau for comparison of said thumb impression. The said memo was, however, dismissed by the Court below by the impugned order. Hence this revision.

¶11

Heard learned counsel on either side.

¶12

It is not in dispute and learned counsel for the respondent also fairly accepts that the petitioners’ earlier applications for sending the signatures as well as thumb impressions for examination by the expert were allowed by the court below and also confirmed by this Court and by a further order in C.R.P.No.3399 of 2012, one more opportunity was also granted to the petitioners. It is, however, apparent that the petitioners could not get any contemporaneous document executed by the executant of Ex.B3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, now submits that even otherwise also the admitted signatures of the plaintiff in the plaint as well as in the vakalat may be compared with the signatures appearing on Ex.B3. Consequently, he further submits that so far as the thumb impressions are concerned, original of Ex.B3 contains the thumb impressions and there is no impediment for examination thereof by the Expert, Finger Print Bureau by comparing it with the thumb impression of the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s thumb impressions as well as the signatures have already been taken in the open court on the previous dates of hearing before the trial court. Thus, in my opinion, there should be no impediment for sending the said

¶13

thumb impressions taken in the Court for comparison with the thumb impressions appearing on Ex.B3 to the Finger Print Bureau for examination and opinion and the request of the petitioner to that extent could not have been rejected by the trial court. So far as comparison of signatures is concerned, even in the absence of any contemporaneous document, court below can always send admitted signatures of the plaintiff appearing in the plaint and vakalat for examination and opinion, by comparing it with signatures appearing in Ex.B3 to the handwriting expert to whom the documents were earlier sent. In that view of the matter, the prayer of the petitioner for the expert’s opinion on signatures as well as thumb impression to ascertain the genuineness of Ex.B3 ought to have been considered by the trial court rather than dismissing the memo filed by the petitioner. In view of that, the order impugned is set aside.

¶14

Court below is directed to send signatures of plaintiff in the plaint and vakalat along with his signatures on Ex.B3 for comparison and opinion to the hand writing expert i.e., A.P. Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad and to send the thumb impressions of plaintiff taken in the open court earlier to be compared with the thumb impressions appearing on Ex.B3 for comparison and opinion to the Finger Print Bureau, Government of A.P. The Court below may also direct the said experts to compare the document and send the opinions as expeditiously as possible preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of sample by the respective experts. The petitioner shall furnish correct address of the Bureau to the trial Court for the aforesaid purpose.

¶15

The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

_____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶17

04.04.2013

¶18

lmv

¶19

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶20

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.952 of 2013

¶21

04.04.2013

¶22

lmv

Pabisetty Sreerangaiah Setty ( Died ) v. Pabisetti Nagaraju Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pabisetty Sreerangaiah Setty ( Died ) v. Pabisetti Nagaraju Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.a.Manemma Vs B.Krishna Murthy

Smt. P.Kusuma, Vs S. Hanumantha Rao

Mohd. Saleem Vs Amina Textiles

U.Satyanarayana Vs Sri Ram Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd.

Chintam Koteswara Rao Vs Grandi Venkata Ratna Mahalakshmi

T.Raju, Vs Mr. Balakrishna