Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 796 (MAD)

Venkatachalam v. Angammal

2003-04-30

M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM

body2003
Judgment : The order dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff, the petitioner herein to send the document Ex.B2 filed by the defendants/respondents for comparison by the Handwriting Expert is sought to be set aside in this civil revision petition. 2. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondents herein. The written statement has been filed by the first respondent stating that there was a panchayat muchalika dated 20.12.2000 by which the plaintiff would not be entitled to the relief sought for. After examination of the witnesses on both sides was over, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.16 of 2002 under Order 26 Rule 10(A) C.P.C. read with Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send the document, namely panchayat muchalika filed the defendants/respondents to obtain the opinion of the Handwriting Expert contending that the signature found in Ex.B2 was not put by him and as such, Ex.B2 is a fabricated one. The same was dismissed on the ground that there was a long delay in filing the petition. 3. Contending that the mere delay cannot defeat the rights of the parties, the counsel for the petitioner has filed this revision assailing the impugned order. 4. I heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the first respondent/caveator. 5. On going through the records and the impugned order, I do not find any ground to hold that the impugned order would suffer from any infirmity. The suit has been filed by the petitioner on 3.1.2001 against the respondents. The written statement has been filed by the first respondent herein on 28.11.2001 specifically mentioning about the panchayat muchalika in which the petitioner has signed as one of the parties. Admittedly, there was no reply for this written statement. The issues were framed on 1.4.2002. The trial commenced on 3.7.2002. On the side of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined. For examination of further witnesses, the matter was adjourned to 13.11.2002, 15.11.2002 and 18.11.2002. However, the other witnesses were not examined. Therefore, the plaintiffs side was closed. Thereafter, on the side of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 5 were examined. Subsequently, the arguments also were heard. At that time, the petitioner filed an application to reopen the case to examine some more witnesses on his side. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the matter was adjourned for two hearings. Therefore, the plaintiffs side was closed. Thereafter, on the side of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 5 were examined. Subsequently, the arguments also were heard. At that time, the petitioner filed an application to reopen the case to examine some more witnesses on his side. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the matter was adjourned for two hearings. However, no witnesses were examined. Without availing the opportunity given by the trial Court to examine other witnesses, the petitioner chose to file an application on 6.1.2003 requesting for sending Ex.B2 for comparison by the Handwriting Expert with the admitted signature. 6. As seen from the records, the petitioner has never taken any steps to send the document Ex.B2 to the Handwriting Expert even though written statement has been filed along with the xerox copy of the said document as early as on 28.11.2001. It is also noticed from the counter filed by the first respondent before the trial Court that the petitioner went to the extent of disputing his own signature in the vakalat and the affidavit filed by him which were marked as Exs.C1 and C2. 7. The fact that the petitioner has never taken the stand that Ex.B2 was a fabricated one either by filing reply or by filing an application to send the document for Handwriting Experts opinion even during the course of trial and even though his application for re-opening the case was allowed to enable him to examine his further witnesses, the same has not been availed of would indicate that his belated application for sending the document for Handwriting Experts opinion was in order to drag on the proceedings. As referred to in the impugned order, the signatures can be compared by the trial Court itself by invoking Section 73 of the Evidence Act. Hence, I do not see any merits in the civil revision petition and the same is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P.No.5423 of 2003 is also dismissed.