Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 3797 (MAD)

Balasubramaniam v. Somasundaram & Others

2008-10-21

M.VENUGOPAL

body2008
Judgment :- The civil revision petitioner/9th defendant in the suit has filed this civil revision petition (C.R.P(PD) No. 3235 of 2008), aggrieved against the orders passed in I.A.No.229 of 2008 in O.S.No.77 of 2004 of 2004 dated 20.2.2008 by the learned District Munsif, Kangayam in dismissing the application filed under Order 6 Rules 9 and 10 of CPC and under Section 151 of CPC. 2. The revision petitioner/9th defendant has filed I.A.No.229 of 2008 praying for an appointment of a Commissioner for the purpose of sending Ex P37 Will and the General Power of Attorney dated 3. 2000 to the forensic Science Department for being examined by an expert and for submission of his report. 3. The trial Court, after contest, while dismissing I.A.No.229 of 2008 has inter alia observed that the revision petitioner/9th defendant has not filed any admitted documents to show the signature of Achiammal for the purpose of comparing the signature with that of the power deed. In fact, the thumb impression and the document containing the admitted finger print of Achiammal have not been filed before the trial Court concededly. The suit has originally been numbered as O.S.No.47 of 1999 and later it got re-numbered as O.S.No.77 of 2004. It appears that the suit has been filed by the deceased Achiammal for declaration that the suit property belongs to her and later after her demise, her legal representative viz., the second plaintiff has been brought on record. In the suit, the relief of permanent injunction has also been asked for. The revision petitioner/9th defendant disputes Ex P37 Will. In the trial Court, the evidence on the side of the plaintiff was closed as early as on 3. 2007,after lapse of one year, I.A.No.229 of 2008 has been filed by the revision petitioner/9th defendant before the trial Court. The revision petitioner/9th defendant and the 8th respondent/8th defendant the sons of deceased Achiammal question Ex P37 Will in the main case. 4. Admittedly, when the evidence on the side of the plaintiff was over and when two sons of the deceased Achiammal/original plaintiff, question Ex P37 Will in the case and when the suit is pending part heard and belatedly when I.A.No.229 of 2008 has been filed praying to send Ex P37 Will and the Power deed dated 3. 4. Admittedly, when the evidence on the side of the plaintiff was over and when two sons of the deceased Achiammal/original plaintiff, question Ex P37 Will in the case and when the suit is pending part heard and belatedly when I.A.No.229 of 2008 has been filed praying to send Ex P37 Will and the Power deed dated 3. 2000 for examination by the finger print and Hand writing expert only to drag on the proceedings and the same has not been filed with bonafide intention and in any event, the revision petitioner/9th defendant has not filed any document containing the admitted finger print and signatures of Achiammal and in this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to allow this civil revision petition and resultantly the same is hereby dismissed in the interest of justice. 5. In fine, this civil revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is also dismissed.