Madras High CourtCRP(MD)/1248/2016dismissed

Thiagarajan v. R.Gurusamy

2016-06-222 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED 22.06.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM C.R.P.(MD)No.1248 of 2016 and C.M.P.(MD)No.6011 of 2016 Thiagarajan .. Petitioner/Appellant/Defendant vs.

R.Gurusamy .. Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 08.02.2016 made in I.A.No.326 of 2015 in A.S.No.57 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Viswanathan

ORDER

This revision arises out of the order passed in I.A.No.326 of 2015 in A.S.No.57 of 2013 by the Principal District Court, Dindigul.

2. The respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.52 of 2009 before the Sub Court, Dindigul against the petitioner for specific performance. After full-fledged trial, the suit came to be decreed on 11.09.2011. Aggrieved over the Judgment and Decree, the petitioner has preferred an appeal in A.S.No.57 of 2013 before the Sub Court, Dindigul. In the appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Order 26 Rule 10 of C.P.C., to send the agreement for opinion of a handwriting expert along with vakalat and written statement filed in the suit. The application was dismissed. Aggrieved over the order, the present revision is filed.

3. Mr.J.Viswanathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent, who has filed the suit for specific performance, has to prove his case. Despite the petitioner denied his signature in the agreement, the respondent did not take steps to get opinion of a handwriting expert pending suit. It is further submitted that the learned Appellate Judge dismissed the application observing that the petitioner/defendant has not taken any steps to compare the signature to prove his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

defence and the reasoning of the Appellate Court cannot be sustained.

4. It is settled law that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove his case. It is seen that the plaintiff has examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 to establish his case. Admittedly, the petitioner did not take steps before the trial Court to get the opinion of the handwriting expert. When the application was filed at the appellate stage, the petitioner has to satisfy the requirement under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C., also. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the revision.

5. In the result, the this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. However, the Appellate Judge, Dindigul shall dispose of the appeal in A.S.No.57 of 2013 as expeditiously as possible preferably on or before 30.08.2016. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (CS) To The Principal District Court, Dindigul.

+1cc to Mr.J.Viswanathan, Advocate, Sr.No.31984 ps JM/NGM-MP/SAR-II/11.07.2016/2P-3C C.R.P(MD)No.1248 of 2016 and C.M.P(MD)No.6011 of 2016 22.06.2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/