Madras High CourtCRP(MD)/535/2020dismissed

J.Thangaraj v. M.Shahul Hameed

2022-03-02Honourable Mrs Justice S.Ananthi (Retd.)2 pages

CRP(MD).No. 535 of 2020 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.03.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S. ANANTHI CRP(MD).No. 535 of 2020 and CMP(MD).No.3379 of 2020 J. Thangaraj .. petitioner/Petitioner/Defendant Vs.

M. Shahul Hameed .. Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No. 1 of 2019 in O.S.No.184 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Thenkasi, dated 17.10.2019. For Petitioner ...

Mr.Ananth C. Rajesh For respondent ...

Mr. S. Velrajan

ORDER

This Civil Revision is filed to set aside the order, dated 17.10.2019 passed in I.A.No. 1 of 2019 in O.S.No.184 of 2015 on the file of Additional Sub Court, Thenkasi.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3. The revision petitioner has filed the said I.A.No.1 of 2019 to compare the signature of the plaintiff with the pro note signature contained in the Registered sale deed dated 28.12.2010. The petitioner has filed written statement on 16.11.2015. He has filed I.A.No.1 of 2019 after three years of filing of written statement on 17.12.2018. Already, PW.1 examined and the plaintiff side evidence was closed. At this stage, the petitioner filed the present I.A.No. 1 of 2019. First, the Interlocutory application cannot be entertained after three years from the date of written statement and also after concluding the evidence of plaintiff the Court can compare the signature with the admitted signature.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1996 (2) SCC 704 (O. Bharathan Vs. K. Sudhakaran and another) wherein it is held that the disputed signatures without assistance of any expert https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

CRP(MD).No. 535 of 2020 when the signatures with which the disputed signatures are to be compared are themselves not the admitted signatures.

5. But, in this case the admitted signature in the sale deed was filed by the revision petitioner only in the said I.A.No.1 of 2019. So, the Court can compare the pro note signature with the admitted signature in the sale deed. Consequently, the plaintiff has to prove his case when the defendants denied the signature and the plaintiff has to stand on his own leg. After concluding the evidence of plaintiff the said application cannot be entertained.

6. So, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Court below and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court can compare the signature with the admitted signature. Since the suit is pending from 2015, the Additional Subordinate Judge, Thenkasi is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.184 of 2015 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) trp To The Additional Sub Court, Thenkasi, +1 CC to M/s.ANANTH C RAJESH, Advocate ( SR-9789[F] dated 03/03/2022 ) CRP(MD).No. 535 of 2020 and CMP(MD).No.3379 of 2020 02.03.2022 ks(CO) TR(07.03.2022) 2P 3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2