HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 321 OF 2023
O R D E R:
This Revision is filed aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2022 in I.A.No. 319 of 2022 in O.S.No. 149 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar.
2. I.A.No. 319 of 2022 was filed by defendant No.4 in the suit to send the document i.e. plaint in O.S.No. 953 of 1988 dated 13.07.1988 with the original sale deed i.e. document No. 2251 of 1995 dated 13.03.1995 for comparison of signatures of the plaintiff with plaint and vendor in the sale deed for expert opinion. The suit was filed by the 1st respondent herein seeking declaration of title and for permanent injunction and also for rectification of the entries in the revenue records. The said I.A. was dismissed vide order under Revision on the ground that the petitioner is no way related to the documents.
3. Sri R. Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner - defendant No.4 submits that the suit schedule property originally belongs to the petitioner's ancestors and they have not executed any sale deed. It is submitted that the signatures were forged and a sale deed was obtained, as such, he wants this document to be sent for expert opinion. It is further submitted that in fact, they filed suit to declare the sale 2 deed as null and void and the said suit was dismissed for default. Learned counsel submits partition suit was also dismissed for default and they filed application for restoration of the same. Learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Bande Siva Shankar Srinivasa Prasad v Ravi Surya Praksh Babu1 and submits that the gap between the admitted signature and the disputed signature cannot alone be the basis not to send the same for expert opinion. Basing on the facts of the case, discretion has to be exercised by the judge. He submits that to prove the case of the petitioner that the said signatures are not one and the same, the Court below ought to have sent the same for expert opinion. He submits that he has filed another I.A. to summon those documents and the reasons given by the Court below in the said order and the reasons given in the impugned order run contrary to each other. According to the learned counsel, the Court below ought to have allowed the said I.A. and sent the documents for expert opinion.
4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao representing Sri V. Rohith, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff in 1995. It is submitted that for marking these two documents earlier an Application was filed by the plaintiff 1 2016(2) ALD 1 3 himself and the said Application was dismissed. Suppressing the same, the petitioner filed an Application, that was allowed. It is submitted that two partition suits ie. O.S.No. 110 of 2012 and O.S.No. 139 of 2012 where the petitioner is party, were dismissed; one was dismissed for default and the other was dismissed on merits. It is submitted that the petitioner has not taken any steps so far and the said suits were not restored. Learned Senior Counsel submits that in the suit filed by the 1st respondent seeking declaration of title to the property, the petitioner seeks the said document to be declared as null and void. He submits that in the entire affidavit, it has not been mentioned what is the purpose to be achieved or for what reasons they want these signatures to be sent for expert opinion. As no grounds were made out the Court below has rightly dismissed the I.A.
5. The petitioner wants to send the plaint in O.S.No.953 of 1998 and the sale deed dated 13.03.1995 for expert opinion. He therefore, filed the present I.A. In the said I.A., except stating that they want to send the documents for expert opinion, no reasons were mentioned what is the purpose sought to be achieved. It is stated that in the earlier I.A.No. 246 of 2021, they have stated the purpose for which they called for the records and as this I.A. is to send the said documents for 4 expert opinion, hence they have not mentioned the purpose. Though the copy of I.A.No.246 of 2021 was not filed along with the Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner filed the same by way of a memo. This Court has perused the said I.A. It only says that the documents have to be sent for comparison of signatures which are material importance for the purpose of just and proper adjudication of the matter. What is the just and material importance is not mentioned by the petitioner. This suit is of the year 2014, hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Court as the Application was filed without any purpose and without any reasons. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed.
6. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
7. The Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand automatically closed.
-----------------------------------
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 27th February 2023 ksld 5 6