IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07-04-2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN C.R.P.(PD) No.366 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 Devaraj .. Petitioner Versus 1.Ramesh 2.Padma 3.Jayamma 4.Anandha 5.Chinnakkamma 6.Narayanamma 7.Chinnappa 8.Venkatesappa 9.Rajappa 10.Duraisamy 11.Krishnappa 12.Shanthamma .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to set aside the order of the learned District Munsif of Hosur, dated 15.12.2009, in I.A.No.1024 of 2009, in O.S.No.91 of 1996 and allow the above civil revision petition. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Nicholas For Respondents: Mr.V.Manohar (R2) O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 15.12.2009, made in I.A.No.1024 of 2009, in O.S.No.91 of 1996, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Hosur.
2. The petitioner herein had filed the suit, in O.S.No.91 of 1996, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Hosur, praying for a decree in his favour, for specific performance, by directing the defendants 1 to 4 to execute and register the sale deed, after receiving the balance of sale consideration from the plaintiff.
3. The petitioner had also filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.1024 of 2009, praying for a direction to a finger print expert to take photographs of the petitioner’s signature found in the agreement, dated 11.4.1992, and to compare the same with the signatures on the admitted sale deeds, agreement and other documents, found along with the Court records and to direct the said expert to file a report thereon, containing his opinion.
4. The trial Court, by its order, dated 15.12.2009, had dismissed the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner stating that the said application had been filed, belatedly. The trial Court had also stated that the suit, in O.S.No.91 of 1996, on the file of the District Court, Hosur, had been filed, originally, before the Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri, as O.S.No.179 of 1993. Thereafter, the suit had been transferred and re-numbered on the file of the District Court, Hosur.
5. The trial Court had found that a written statement had also been filed by the fourth defendant, on 28.6.1996. In the said written statement, the existence of the sale agreement, dated 9.5.1992, had been denied. In the said written statement the existence of the sale deed, dated 11.4.1992, registered, on 28.10.1992, had been mentioned. However, during the pendency of the suit for nearly 13 years, from the year, 1996, the petitioner had not requested for the comparison of the signatures found in the sale agreement, dated 11.4.1992, and the sale deed registered, on 28.10.1992. The trial Court had also stated that, since the decision in the suit would be for a decree of specific performance, based on the agreement for sale, said to have been made in favour of the plaintiff, on 9.5.1992, there would not be any necessity to decide the issues arising for consideration, based on the validity and the genuineness of the alleged agreement, dated 11.4.1992, said to have been made with the defendants. Accordingly, the trial Court had clearly stated, in its order, dated 15.12.2009, that it is of the view that the application had been filed, belatedly, after a period of nearly 13 years from the date of the filing of the suit. In such circumstances, the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner had been dismissed.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the order passed by the trial Court, on 15.12.2009, in I.A.No.1024 of 2009, is vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the records. The Court below has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it, by declining to send the disputed document for obtaining the opinion of an hand writing expert, for comparison with the signatures in the admitted sale deed, the agreement and the power of attorney deed.
7. The Court below had failed to see that the defendants had created a forged agreement, dated 11.4.1992, in favour of Krishnappa and Gopalappa, with a view to defeat the rights of the petitioner arising under the agreement, dated 9.5.1992. The trial Court had failed to note that the request for comparison of the signatures by an handwriting expert could be made only when the document in question is produced at the time of the evidence. Further, the Court below had failed to see that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants if the signatures in the disputed documents are compared with the signatures found in the admitted documents.
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had submitted that the trial Court was right in dismissing the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner, in I.A.No.1024 of 2009. The application had been filed by the petitioner after a lapse of nearly 13 years, from the time of the filing of the suit. The interlocutory application had been filed by the petitioner only with the mala fide intention of dragging on the proceedings in the suit. Therefore, the civil revision petition is devoid of merits.
9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for in the present civil revision petition. There is no explanation from the petitioner as to why the application had been filed after a delay of nearly 13 years from the date of the filing of the suit, in O.S.No.91 of 1996, in the year, 1996. The petitioner, having had the knowledge of the existence of the disputed sale deed registered, on 28.10.1992, ought to have taken steps, promptly, to substantiate his claim that the said document had been created only for the purpose of defeating the valuable rights of the petitioner. As such, the order, dated 15.12.2009, passed by the trial Court, in I.A.No.1024 of 2009, in O.S.No.91 of 1996, cannot be said to be erroneous or illegal. As the civil revision petition is found to be devoid of merits, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
csh
To
The District Munsif,
Hosur