Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1943 (MAD)

K. Easwaran v. S. Sivasubramani

2015-04-20

K.K.SASIDHARAN

body2015
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.79 of 2007, before the learned Subordinate Judge, Palani, against the respondents, praying for a Judgment and Decree of specific performance pursuant to a sale agreement, dated 26.02.2007. The respondents entered appearance and denied the execution of sale agreement. 2. The petitioner filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.231 of 2009 with a prayer to send the document for expert opinion. According to the petitioner, the respondents acknowledged the pre-suit notice on 30.05.2007 and as such the signature found in the document, dated 26.02.2007, could be compared with the signature of the respondents found in the acknowledgment card, dated 01.06.2007. The interlocutory application was opposed by the respondents. 3. The learned Trial Judge observed that the respondents denied the execution of document and as such it is their duty to prove the defence and dismissed the interlocutory application, by order, dated 20.08.2009. The learned Trial Judge was of the view that the petitioner could have filed contemporaneous sale deed or any other registered deed for comparison. Feeling aggrieved by the order, dated 20.08.2009, the petitioner has preferred the civil revision petition in C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1520 of 2009. 4. The petitioner filed the suit, in O.S.No.79 of 2007, on the strength of the sale agreement, dated 26.02.2007. The respondents have denied the execution of sale agreement. It is, therefore, the bounden duty of the petitioner to prove that it was only the respondents, who have signed the sale agreement. It was only for the said purpose, the petitioner filed the interlocutory application in I.A.No.231 of 2009. Incase there are no contemporaneous registered documents to prove the signature of the respondents, other documents could also be looked into, provided the concerned parties admit the signature. In the subject case, the respondents have no case and they have not signed the acknowledgment card. Incase, the respondents are in possession of contemporaneous documents, nothing prevented them to produce the same before the Trial Court for comparison. The learned Trial Judge appears to have taken a hyper technical view and shifted the burden on the respondents to prove that they have not signed the sale agreement. Such being the factual position, the petitioner was fully correct in filing the interlocutory application to send the document for expert opinion. 5. In the result, the order, dated 20.08.2009, in I.A.No.231 of 2009 in O.S.No.79 of 2007, is set aside. Such being the factual position, the petitioner was fully correct in filing the interlocutory application to send the document for expert opinion. 5. In the result, the order, dated 20.08.2009, in I.A.No.231 of 2009 in O.S.No.79 of 2007, is set aside. The interlocutory application, in I.A.No.231 of 2009, is allowed. However, I make it clear that this order would not stand in the way of respondents from producing contemporaneous documents before the Trial Court to compare the signature. 6. The learned Trial Judge is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. 7. In the upshot, I allow the civil revision petition in C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No.1520 of 2009. 8. Since I am allowing the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.231 of 2009, there is no need to reopen the matter and as such the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.232 of 2009, is unnecessary. The civil revision petition, in C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1521 of 2009, is disposed of with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.