Telangana High Court
Boosa Viajaya vs Ponnam Amerender Babu on 27 February, 2023
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
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
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
2016(2) ALD 1
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
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
