AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Sri G.Veera Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.Ratnakar, learned counsel for the respondents.
For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the trial Court.
The present Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated 26.09.2024 passed in I.A.No.581 of 2024 in O.S.No.382 of 2017 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order XVI Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “C.P.C.”), seeking to summon Smt.Pillala Shobha, W/o. Lingaiah, for production of the registered sale deed vide document No.2546 of 2000 dated 01.08.2000 and for the purpose of comparison of the signature of Mohammed Khaja Moinoddin appearing therein with the questioned signature, was dismissed.
Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the suit in O.S.No.382 of 2017 was filed by the petitioner seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The cause of action arose on 03.07.2017, when the defendants allegedly interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, and again on 11.07.2017, when they allegedly attempted to dispossess the plaintiff. Initially, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff by order dated 27.11.2017. Thereafter, the defendants filed a petition for restoration, which was allowed, and subsequently, the parties filed their respective pleadings.
Learned counsel further submitted that, during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.85 of 2024 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, seeking to send the simple sale deed dated 12.08.1994 to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, for comparison of the signature of Mohammed Khaja Moinoddin, S/o. Quosim, appearing therein with his admitted signature. The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court by order dated 21.02.2024, directing the document to be sent to the FSL for expert opinion.
It is the specific case of the petitioner that the FSL returned the document stating that an additional admitted signature of Mohammed Khaja Moinoddin was required for effective comparison. According to the petitioner, Mohammed Khaja Moinoddin had subsequently executed a registered sale deed dated 01.08.2000 in favour of Smt. Pillala Shobha, W/o. Lingaiah, R/o. Parkal. Therefore, the petitioner requested Smt. Pillala Shobha to produce the original registered sale deed dated 01.08.2000 so that the signature appearing therein could be used as an admitted signature for comparison with the questioned signature. However, Smt. Pillala Shobha allegedly declined to produce the document.
It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner was constrained to file the present application under Order XVI Rule 3 of the C.P.C. seeking to summon Smt. Pillala Shobha and secure production of the registered sale deed dated 01.08.2000. Learned counsel contended that the document is relevant for the purpose of carrying out the comparison already permitted by the Trial Court in I.A.No.85 of 2024 and that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the document is summoned and subjected to expert examination.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the Civil Revision Petition and submitted that the impugned order is well reasoned and does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It is further contended that the present application has been filed at a belated stage only with a view to protract the proceedings and delay the trial. Therefore, learned counsel sought dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the material available on record.
It is not in dispute that the learned Trial Court, by order dated 21.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.85 of 2024, allowed the application filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and directed the simple sale deed dated 12.08.1994 to be sent to the FSL, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, for obtaining an expert opinion with regard to the signature of Mohammed Khaja Moinoddin.
It is the case of the petitioner that the FSL returned the document on the ground that an additional admitted signature of Mohammed Khaja Moinoddin was necessary for comparison. The petitioner asserts that such a signature is available on the registered sale deed dated 01.08.2000, said to have been executed by Mohammed Khaja Moinoddin in favour of Smt. Pillala Shobha.
Once the Trial Court had already permitted the disputed signature to be examined by an expert, and the expert is stated to have required an additional admitted signature for the purpose of comparison, securing a document containing such admitted signature would appear to be relevant for proper adjudication of the dispute. The petitioner is not seeking to introduce anything new through the present application; rather, the prayer is only to secure a document which, according to the petitioner, would facilitate the expert examination already permitted by the Trial Court. The contention of the respondents that the application is intended only to delay the proceedings cannot, by itself, be a sufficient ground to refuse production of a document which may have a bearing upon the proper adjudication of the dispute.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court ought to have considered the relevance of the document in the light of its earlier order dated 21.02.2024 and the requirement stated by the expert for an additional admitted signature. The dismissal of the application, without considering the aforesaid aspect in its proper perspective, cannot be sustained.
The expenses required for securing the documents and obtaining the expert opinion shall be borne by the revision petitioner.
It is made clear that the revision petitioner shall not seek unnecessary adjournments or take any steps to delay the trial. The learned Trial Court shall proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by set aside the order dated 26.09.2024 passed in I.A.No.581 of 2024 in O.S.No.382 of 2017 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.