Telangana High Court
CRP/5806/2015 of Thadikonda Sambasiva Rao Vs Chennupati Siva Parvathi on 31 December 2015
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5806 of 2015 Date:31.12.2015 Between: Thadikonda Sambasiva Rao, W/o Kotaiah ..... Petitioner And: Chennupati Siva Parvathi, W/o Srinivasa Rao and three others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. K.Narsi Reddy Counsel for
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5806 of 2015
Date:31.12.2015
Between:Thadikonda Sambasiva Rao,W/o Kotaiah And:Chennupati Siva Parvathi,W/o Srinivasa Rao and three others.
..... Petitioner
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. K.Narsi Reddy Counsel for Respondents: --- The Court made the following:ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order,dated 06.10.2015, in I.A.No.1189 of 2015 in O.S.No.192of 2012 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge,Sattenapalli.
The respondents filed the above-mentioned suit forspecific performance of agreement of sale, dated29.7.1989, against the petitioner. The petitioner filed theabove-mentioned I.A. under Section-45 of the IndianEvidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act’) for sending the suit agreement of sale along with his admitted signaturesto a Hand writing Expert for comparison. This applicationwas dismissed by the lower Court on the ground thatexcept praying that his admitted signatures may be sentto a Hand writing Expert, the petitioner has not indicatedas to what those admitted signatures are. The lowerCourt has also observed that no contemporaneousdocuments containing the signatures of the petitionerhave been produced by him for comparison with the suitdocument.
As rightly observed by the lower Court, unless thepetitioner produces the document containing his admittedsignatures, it is not safe to send the signaturessubscribed by him in the Court for comparison with thedisputed signatures.
Upon a careful consideration of the facts of thecase and the reasons given by the lower Court, I do notfind any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in theorder of the lower Court.
Mr. K.Narsi Reddy, learned counsel for thepetitioner, however, submitted that there is a document ofthe year 1984 containing the signatures of the petitionerand that the lower Court may be directed to compare thesame with the disputed signatures. I find this requestreasonable though such a request did not appear to havebeen made by the petitioner before the lower Court. If thepetitioner makes an application in this regard, the lowerCourt is directed to receive the documents containing theadmitted signatures of the petitioner for comparison withthe signatures on the suit document by exercising itspower under Section-73 of the Act.
Subject to the above direction, the Civil RevisionPetition is disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the Civil RevisionPetition, CRPMP.No.7611 of 2015 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
____________________________
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA
REDDY
31[st] December, 2015
DR