High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
G. Jeyaraj v. A. Devasena - C.R.P.PD.(MD).No.982 of 2006  RD-TN 942 (14 March 2007)
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 14/03/2007
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN
C.R.P.PD.(MD).No.982 of 2006
M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2006
G. Jeyaraj ... Petitioner Vs.
1. A. Devasena
2. K. Sivakami ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 26.06.2006 made in I.A.No.219 of 2006 in O.S.No.100 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Madurai. For Petitioner : Mr. K. Govindarajan for C.Ramesh
For Respondents : Mr. P.T.S. Narendravasan :ORDER
The first defendant in O.S.No.100 of 2004 on the file of the F.T.C.No.2, Madurai is the Revision Petitioner. He is aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition filed by him in I.A.219 of 2006 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act r/w Order 26 Rule 10 A of C.P.C. for appointing an advocate commissioner for the purpose of sending Exp.B4 to B6, which are unregistered release deeds, for comparison and obtaining an opinion from a handwriting expert.
2. The respondents herein filed O.S.No.100 of 2004 for partition of the suit schedule property and also for other reliefs. The Revision Petitioner as first defendant filed a written statement and an additional written statement contending that the respondents herein after have already relinquished their right in the suit property in favour of the Revision petitioner for consideration and subsequently executed unregistered release deeds, Ex.B4 to B6, on 26.09.1993 itself. Therefore, the Revision Petitioner filed I.A.No.219 of 2006 for the aforesaid relief and as the same is dismissed by the lower Court on 26.06.2006, the above Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. I have also gone through the documents referred to by them in support of their submissions.
4. After hearing the arguments and after going through the records, I am of the considered view that the Civil Revision Petition has no merits at all.
5. The order under challenge indicates that in the suit, P.W.1 was examined on 10.1.06 and D.W.1 was examined on 03.04.2006 and the evidence was closed on 09.06.2006. The suit was posted for arguments on 12.06.2006, 14.06.2006 and again on 15.06.2006. At that time, the Revision petitioner filed a petition to re-open the evidence and D.W.3 was examined and again posted for arguments on 22.06.2006 and again on 26.06.2006. On 26.06.2006, the respondents herein filed their written arguments notes. At that stage, the Revision petitioner has filed I.A.No.219 of 2006 for comparing the signatures contained in Exp.B4 to 6 said to have been executed on 22.06.1993 with the signatures contained in plaint and vakalat filed in O.S.No.100 of 2004.
6. First of all, I find no bonafide on the part of the Revision petitioner in filing I.A on 219 of 2006 at the last minute when the suit itself was posted for arguments. No extension whatsoever was given by Revision petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.219 of 2006 for not filing such a petition earlier. This Court frowns upon the conduct of the Revision petitioner in filing such application for comparison of signatures at the eleventh hour in order to procrastinate the arguments and passing of Judgement in the Suit.
7. Secondly, the signatures could be compared in the admitted documents of a contemporaneous period and signatures contained in Exp.B4 to B6 said to have been executed on 26.09.1993 could not be compared with the plaint and vakalat filed in the suit of the year 2004. In this connection, it is useful to refer to the judgement of our High Court reported in 2006 (3) M.L.J.567 (Central Bank of India represented by its Manager Guru Rajan, Chennai Vs. Antony Hardware Mart represented by its Proprietor) wherein it has been held that the disputed signature can be compared with the admitted signatures which were contemporaneous and not subsequent to the date of the disputed signature. More over, this Court has also deprecated the practise of comparing the signature with the vakalat and the written statement.
8. Hence I am inclined to interfere with the order of the lower Court and the Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed.
9. In the result, this Civil Revision petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is also dismissed.
The Additional District Judge,
Fast Track Court No.2
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.