IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 03.12.2010 CORAM The Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.S.Ramanathan C.R.P(PD)No.2795 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 K.Venkatachalam ... Petitioner Vs. S.N.Thangaraj ... Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against the petition and order dated 18.06.2010 made in I.A.No. 399 of 2010 in I.A.No.675 of 2008 in O.S.No.287 of 2008, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Erode. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Ethirajulu For Respondent : Mr.K.R.Ramesh Kumar O R D E R
The plaintiff in O.S.No.287 of 2008, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Erode, is the revision petitioner herein.
2. The suit was filed by the revision petitioner for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 07.03.2008. The respondent/defendant denied the execution of the agreement of sale and therefore, filed application in I.A.No.675 of 2008, to compare the signature found in the agreement of sale with that of the signature of the respondent/defendant in the registered sale deed dated 19.09.2007 and that was ordered and the same was also confirmed by this Court vide order dated 05.11.2009, in C.R.P.(PD)No.215 of 2009.
3. Thereafter, a memo was filed by the revision petitioner in I.A.No.675 of 2008, for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The respondent filed application in I.A.No.675 of 2008, seeking for a direction to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to take the disputed document and also the sale deeds dated 19.09.2007 to the Expert for getting opinion and that was ordered. As against the same, the revision petitioner filed petition in C.R.P.(PD)No.1247 of 2010 and that was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 23.04.2010 by directing the Court below to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and to direct the Advocate Commissioner to take the documents in question to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chennai, for getting Expert’s opinion. Thereafter, the revision petitioner filed application in I.A.No.399 of 2010 in I.A.No.675 of 2008 seeking for direction directing the respondent herein to produce four sale deeds executed by him for comparing the signature found in the agreement of sale. That petition was dismissed and as against the same, this revision petition is filed.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that as per the orders passed in the earlier proceedings, the signature found in the agreement of sale has to be compared only with the sale deeds dated 19.09.2007 and to enable the Expert to have more admitted signatures of the respondent, the four sale deeds containing the admitted signature of the respondent can also be produced and therefore, the respondent may be directed to produce the sale deeds for comparison by the Expert.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that as per the orders passed in C.R.P.(PD)No.215 of 2009 and C.R.P(PD)No.1247 of 2010, this Court has directed the comparison of the signature found in the agreement of sale only with the sale deeds dated 19.09.2007. Therefore, the present revision petition filed by the revision petitioner cannot be entertained, as it is only an attempt to drag on the litigation. He further submitted that out of the four documents, the property covered in Document No.1, was sold by the respondent and the property covered in Document No.2, was marked and the respondent is not having possession of the original document and the Document No.3 was lost and paper publication was also given to that effect. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that documents cannot be produced.
6. This Court has held in the earlier revisions that the Documents dated 19.09.2007, can be compared with the signature found in the disputed document. Nevertheless, for better appreciation by the Expert, the admitted signatures of the respondent found in the earlier documents can also be given. It is admitted that the document No.4, mentioned in the petition viz., the document dated 17.05.2006, is available with the respondent and no prejudice would be caused to the respondent by producing the same for comparison by the Expert, and hence, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to produce the document dated 17.05.2006, viz., the original sale deed before the Court below and the Court below is directed to give direction to the Advocate Commissioner to take that document along with the sale deed dated 19.09.2007, for comparison with the disputed document.
7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
sd
To
The Additional District Judge,
Fast Track Court No.I,
Erode