This common order dismissed three civil revision petitions challenging the trial court's refusal to reopen evidence and recall an applicant to adduce documents regarding signatures in a specific performance suit. The High Court upheld the decision.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5204, 5237 AND 5290 OF 2018
COMMON ORDER:
These three civil revision petitions are filed against the common order dated 01.08.2018 in I.A.Nos.319, 320 and 321 of 2018 in O.S.No.427 of 2007 passed by learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, dismissing those petitions filed by the petitioner/2nd defendant.
2
plaint schedule property and subsequently, the mother of 2nd defendant died. While so, the 1st defendant was proclaiming that he was having a document to show that a part of the plaint schedule property was purchased by him, which is false.
(b) In this backdrop, when the matter was coming up for arguments, the aforementioned petitions were filed by the petitioner/2nd defendant.
(c) The trial court, upon hearing both sides, dismissed the above petitions on the main observation that already thumb impression of mother of the petitioner by name Ravi Audemma, who was the executant of Ex.A1, was sent to expert for opinion and the expert submitted his opinion. In that view, the comparison of the disputed signature of the attestor under Ex.A1 with the admitted signatures on the documents appended in the list of the petition would not serve any purpose. Further, nowhere in the written statement, the petitioner/2nd defendant pleaded that signature of the attestor in Ex.A1 was not that of her husband. Since there is no denial pleading to that effect, no evidence can be permitted to be adduced. Moreover, Ex.A1 was of the year 1982, whereas, the signatures sought to be sent for comparison appearing on the documents were of the year 2001 and 2002 and no contemporaneous signatures were produced and therefore, no purpose would be served in
3
referring the documents for comparison of the signatures. The trial court also observed that it was an old suit of the year 2007 and the petitions were filed after closure of the evidence and during the course of arguments and hence at that belated stage, petitions cannot be allowed. The trial court accordingly dismissed the petitions.
Hence, the instant civil revision petitions.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and respondent.
4
the matter was coming up for arguments again, petitions were filed by the 2nd defendant to reopen the matter and recall her for marking the documents which purportedly contain the signatures of her husband. Learned counsel further argued that as rightly observed by the trial court, no corresponding plea was taken in the written statement to the effect that the husband of 2nd defendant never acted as an attestor to Ex.A1. Without such a plea, the petitioner/2nd defendant cannot be permitted to take such a plea in the petitions and she cannot be permitted to adduce evidence to that effect. This Court finds force in the submission of learned counsel for respondent.
5
suit. So, at the outset, I find no illegality or irregularity in the common order impugned. Hence, there are no merits in the civil revision petitions.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 26.10.2018 SS
PETITIONER/2 DEFENDANT
RESPONDENT
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
