Dismissed

M.Srinivasulu v. v.Aruna

Telangana HC27 Jul 2018CRP/3471/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a civil revision petition challenging the rejection of an application to send an agreement for handwriting comparison. The court held that disputed signatures cannot be compared with other disputed signatures and remanded the matter noting no jurisdictional error. Decision: Dismissed at admissition stage.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition failed and dismissed at the stage of admission; miscellaneous petitions to be closed.

M.Srinivasulu Vs v.Aruna — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3471 of 2018

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Revision has been filed challenging the order dt.06-04-2018 in I.A.No.640 of 2017 in O.S.No.217 of 2010 of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

¶4

The petitioner is 2^nd defendant in the suit. The 1^st respondent filed the suit against petitioner for specific performance of an agreement of sale dt.31-08-2009.

¶5

Petitioner filed a counter-suit O.S.No.377 of 2013 for

¶6

declaration of his title relying on a sale deed dt.16-01-2010 executed by the 1^st defendant in his favour.

¶7

Petitioner filed I.A.No.640 of 2017 to send the agreement of sale dt.31-08-2009 to the Handwriting Expert for comparison of the signature of the 1^st defendant with the signature of 1^st defendant which is available on an agreement of sale dt.11-08-2008 and registered sale deed dt.16-01-2010.

¶8

Counter was filed by plaintiff stating that he did not admit that 1^st defendant executed any of the three documents.

¶9

Since petitioner did not file contemporaneous signatures of the 1^st defendant, the Court below dismissed said I.A.

¶10

Assailing the same, this Revision is filed.

¶11

MSR,J C.R.P.No.3471 of 2018

¶12

¶13

Learned counsel for petitioner contended that only agreement of sale dt.11-08-2008 and sale deed dt.16-01-2010 are available with him, which contain the signature of the 1^st defendant and therefore only those two documents should have been sent along with the document dt.31-08-2009 containing the disputed signature of the 1^st defendant for comparison.

¶14

I am unable to accede to the said contention for the reason that the comparison of disputed signature can only be made with an admitted signature. Such comparison cannot be made with another disputed signature.

¶15

Therefore, I see no error of jurisdiction in the order passed by the Court below warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶16

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition fails and it is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.

¶17

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶18

__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶19

Date: 27-07-2018 Vsv

M.Srinivasulu v. v.Aruna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Srinivasulu v. v.Aruna

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

Sri BachuPrabhakar Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited

Smt. Y. Mani Reddy Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited

Thirumani Adi Seshu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dandu Kishore Vs D Krishnamma

Dandu Kishore Vs D.Krishnamma

Thummala Bhooma Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana