Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 166 (MAD)

Periyasamy Gounder & Another v. Thangarasu

2009-01-19

A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN

body2009
Judgment :- The order passed in I.A.No.146 of 2008 in A.S.No.42 of 2007 is under challenge in this revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners. 3. I.A.No.146 of 2008 in A.S.No.42 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Court-cum-Fast Track Court No.4, Bhavani was filed under Sections 45 and 151 of CPC requesting the Court to send Ex A4 sale deed alleged to have been executed by the first defendant to an expert for comparing the same with the admitted signature in the settlement deed dated 13. 1988 executed by the first defendant(not an exhibited document). The learned Appellate Judge, after going through the affidavit to the application and counter and after hearing the learned counsel appearing for both sides has dismissed the said application on the ground that there is no need to compare the signature contained in Ex A4 with that of the signature contained in the settlement deed dated 13. 1988 since Ex A4 is of the year 1956 and the settlement deed produced on the side of the petitioner/first defendant is dated 13. 1988 ie., a document executed after a lapse of 32 years. The learned Appellate Judge is of the opinion that only to drag on the case, the said I.A.No.146 of 2008 was filed in spite of a direction given by this Court in S.A.F.15/2008 Judl. Dated 11. 2008 to dispose of the same within eight weeks. 4. A perusal of the written statement filed by the first defendant /revision petitioner herein will go to show that no where in the written statement the first defendant had raised the contention that Ex A4 is a forged document and that Ex A4 was not executed by him. Without a pleading to the effect that Ex A4 sale deed does not contain his signature and the signature contained in Ex A4 is a forged one , it is not open to the revision petitioner to ask the Appellate Authority to send the same to an expert for comparing the signature contained in Ex A4 with the signature contained in the settlement deed dated 13. 1988. Under such circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the findings of the learned Appellate Judge in I.A.No.146 of 2008 in A.S.No.42 of 2007 for having come to a conclusion that there is no merit in the petition and it deserves to be dismissed. 1988. Under such circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the findings of the learned Appellate Judge in I.A.No.146 of 2008 in A.S.No.42 of 2007 for having come to a conclusion that there is no merit in the petition and it deserves to be dismissed. 5. In fine, this civil revision petition is dismissed before admission. The learned Appellate Judge is directed to dispose of A.S.No.42 of 2007 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is also dismissed.