Madras High Court
M.Venugopal (Died) vs G.Kishore on 16 April, 2021
C.R.P.(NPD).No.3180 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
C.R.P.(NPD).No.3180 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
1.M.Venugopal (Died)
2.M.Sriram ... Petitioners/Judgment Debtor
[2nd petitioner brought on record as LR of the deceased sole petitioner viz.,
M.Venugopal vide Order of Court dated 23.01.2020 made in CMP.No.23933, 23942
& 23945 of 2019 in CRP.No.3180/2013 by T.K.R, J.]
Vs.
G.Kishore ... Respondent/Decree holder
PRAYER : The Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the order passed by the learned X Assistant Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai in memo dated 26.09.2012 in E.A.No.2137 of 2012
in E.P.No.764 of 2009 dated 07.08.2013 and prays for setting aside the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.V.Sairam
For Respondent : No Appearance
ORDER
(Heard through video conferencing)
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of the
learned X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 07.08.2013 in
E.A.No.2137 of 2012 in E.P.No.764 of 2009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.3180 of 2013
2. The Civil Revision Petitioners are the petitioner/judgment debtor.
3. The petitioner/judgement debtor has filed a memo of objection in
E.A.No.2137 of 2012. The petition copy of E.A.No.2137 of 2012 is not
available on file. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner that it is a petition filed for getting a report from a
handwriting expert by comparing the signature. But it is seen from the records
that the petition filed for comparing the signature by the judgement debtor
before the Executing Court has been filed in E.A.No.2130 of 2011 only. In that
case, E.A.No.2137 of 2012 could not be the petition filed under Section 45 of
the Evidence Act for comparison of signature. It is seen from the order passed
in E.A.No.2130 of 2012, on 03.09.2012 that the learned Executing Judge has
allowed the petition. However, the judgement debtor has chosen to file a memo
of objection by stating that the sample signatures which were obtained for
comparison, do not relate to the contemporary period in which the execution
petition has been filed and hence those signatures are not sufficient for sending
them to the handwriting expert.
4. While hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner, it was clarified as to who was the person came to Court on the
alleged day for giving the sample signatures. The learned counsel for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.3180 of 2013
revision petitioner submitted that he was not the decree holder and he must be
some other person.
5. If the person who attended the Court and gave the sample signature
was not the decree holder but a stranger, it is immaterial to get his
contemporary signatures. Because the comparison is going to be done with the
signatures of the decree holder as found in the plaint and the signatures affixed
in the Execution Petition. If the contention of the Civil Revision Petitioner is
that some third party has managed to execute the decree by forging the
signature of the original decree holder, there is no point in insisting the
contemporary signature to be obtained from the alleged stranger. Hence this
objection itself is unnecessary and the whole exercise regarding this, is
wasteful. Therefore, I find no merit in this petition.
In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Connected miscellaneous petition in M.P.No.1 of 2013 is closed.
16.04.2021
Speaking
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
Sni
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.3180 of 2013
R.N.MANJULA,J.
Sni
To
1.The X Assistant Judge,
City Civil Court,
Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.
C.R.P.(NPD).No.3180 of 2013
16.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
