Allowed

Sri Padma Devendar v. Sri Narender

Telangana HC6 Mar 2020CRP/384/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court order allowed a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application under Order XXVI Rule 10A and Section 151 CPC. The Court directed the trial court to send disputed and admitted signatures for handwriting comparison in a specific performance suit.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 15.09.2018 was set aside. The trial court is directed to send documents Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 to a handwriting expert for comparison of signatures.

Sri Padma Devendar Vs Sri Narender — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 384 OF 2019

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order dated 1510912018 in lA No.555/2018 in OS No.28l2013 on the file of the court of the Vlll Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri Padma Devendar, S/o P. Chinnaiah,

¶10

.,.PETITIONER/ PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Sri Narender, S/o K. Rajaiah,

¶13

Smt K.Dhana Laxmi, W/o K.Narendar,

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 201S

¶16

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in OS.No.2B ol 2013 on the file of Vlll Additional District Judge, at N iza ma bad.

¶17

lA NO: 2 OF 2019

¶18

Petition under Section^'148-A of CPC R/w. Section 151 of CPC stated in the accompanying affidavit the High Court may be pleased to extend the stay all further proceedings in Court in OS No. 28 of 2013 on the file of the Vlll Additional District Judge, at Nizamabad in lA No.1 of 2019 in CRP No. 384 of 2019 dt. 14-03-2019.

¶19

For the Petitioner : SRI SAROSH BASTAWALA, Advocate

¶20

For the Respondents : SRI B.RAVINDRA REDDY, Advocate

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE llON'BLE Dr. IUSTICE SHAMEEM AITHER

¶23

Civil Revision Petition No.384 of 20:.9

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitic ner/defendant, challenging the r:rder, dated 15.09.2018, passed ir I.i.No.555 of 2018 in O.S.ltlo..2B of 2013, by the VIII Additional District ludge, Nizamabad, whereby, the subject interlocutory app icat:ion filed by the revision petitioner/defendant under Order XXVI Rule 10A read with Section 151 of CPC to send Ex.A.3 Lease [,eed (admitted signature) and Ex.A.2 Receipt (disputed signirture) to the handwriting expert for comparision and report, was^(lisnrissed.

¶26

2, Heard the learned counsel for both the sides ard^perused the record.

¶27

The learned counsel for the revision petiti )ner/defendant would contenC that when the revision petitionerTdefendant had specifically denied the execution of a particular dc,curnent in the written statefirent filed by him in the subject suit, t re^,lourt below ought to have sent the said document to the handwr iting expert for comparision cf the signature of the revision petitl )ner/defendant on that document with that of his admitted signatL re, The Court below erred in d smissing the subject interlocutory :pplication and ultimately^prayed to set aside the order under chall:nge and allow the Civil Revision Petition as prayed for.

¶28

4, On thr:, other hand, the learned coursel for the respondents/prlaintiffs would contend that the Court below rightly

¶29

¶30

declined to send the subject documents to the handwriting expert for comparision and report. There is nothing to take a different view. There is no legal infirmity in the order under challenge and ultimately^prayed to dismiss the Clvil Revision Petition.

¶31

5, As per the material placed on record, the revision petitioner/defendant admitted his signature on Ex.A.1Memorandum of Understanding, dated 17.03.2010. However, the revision petitioner/defendant had disputed his signature on Ex.A.2, an undated Receipt. The contention of the respondents/plaintiffs is that both Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 were executed by the revision petitioner/defendant on the same day, i.e., 17.03.2010. The subject suit is for specific performance of contract, dated 17.03.2010. Admittedly, the subject interlocutory application was filed belatedly. Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 are the relevant documents for the purpose oF determination of the subject suit filed for specific performance of contract, dated 17.03.2010. Both Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 are crucial for effective and complete adjudication of the subject matter of the subject suit. There is specific denial by the revision petitioner/defendant with regard to the execution of Ex.A.2, an undated Receipt. The comparision oF admitted and disputed signature of the revision^{petitioner/defendant} on Ex.A.1 and A.2 would^{yieldjustifiable} result. To avoid any shadow of doubt and also to arrive at a^just conclusion in the subject matter of the suit, this Court is oF the considered opinion that the admitted signature of the revision petitioner/defendant on Ex.A.1 Memorandum of Understanding, dated 17.03.2010 and his

¶32

¶33

disputed signature on Ex.A.2, an undated Receipt, are r,3quired to be sent to the han lwriting expert for examination and report.

¶34

6, Under these circumstances, the impugned order, dated 15.09.2018, passe,d in LA.No.555 of 2018 in O.S.Nc,.2€l of 2013, by the VIII Additicnal District Judge, Nizamabad, is sr:t aside. The Court below is directed to send Ex,A.1 Men ore ndum of Understanding, dated 17.03.2010 and Ex.A.2, an uncated Receipt, to the handwriting expert for comparision of the sigratrre of the revision petitioner/defendant on those documents arrd report. Further, the srgnature of the revision petitioner/rleferndant on Ex.A.1 Memorandrrm of Understanding, dated t7.03.t 01(1, shall be marked as his admitted signature and the so-called si(tnature of the revision^{petitioner/defendant} on Ex.A.2, an und ate,l Receipt, shall be marl.red as his disputed signature. The: revision petitioner/def€rrlsnl shall bear the expenses of thr: h,andwriting expert's report.

¶35

The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, alkrwed. There shall be no orde,r es to costs.

¶36

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this^(lRP, shall stand closed.

¶37

Sd, -13.SATYAVATHI ASSI STA.I\IT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII :) SECIJON OFFICER

¶38

To '1 . The V-lll Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. ?. Qn"^{CC to Sri Sarosh Basrawitu} nJ*lriJibpucf I 9nu^{CC to Sri B.RavindraReddt} A;v;;;i" ioi,U6l 4. Two CD Copies a

'$---

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/03/2020

I z o;
/1 e
t_)
t 2 irAI 2r?0

ORDER

CRP.No.384 of 2019

ALLOWED.

6 >-/

Sri Padma Devendar v. Sri Narender

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Padma Devendar v. Sri Narender

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dosapati Vijayalaxmi and Another Vs Kurella Dhanalaxmi

Smt. Farida Begum and Another Vs M/S. Rock Wool (India) Ltd., and Another

Jammula Satya Prakash Vs Pingili Hymavathi , Jammula Hymavathi

Godishela Gopal Reddy Vs Kushnapally Rajamallu and 8 Others

Smt.Maggidi Vaishanavi , Sujatha Vs Smt.Maggidi Dheelip , Babu

Smt Ashrufunnissa Begum and Another Vs M/S. Virgo Construciton