Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 2167
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J
manduva hanumantha rao – Appellant
Versus
manduva srinivasa rao – Respondent
CRP 2974/2024
N SASIKALA, MADHAVA RAO NALLURI
Procedural rules should enhance justice, allowing the introduction of original documents for expert analysis to ensure fair adjudication.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 14(3) and Section 151 - Application for partition - Plaintiff sought to introduce original partition deed to compare signatures with a disputed Will - Trial Court dismissed application for lack of explanation for delay - Procedural rules must not override substantive rights. (Paras 2-4)
(B) Expert Evidence - Original documents are essential for expert analysis; photocopies are inadequate for forming opinions - The court emphasized the necessity of original documents for accurate expert testimony. (Paras 6-8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a plaintiff in a partition suit, sought to introduce an original partition deed to contest a Will executed by his father, which was dismissed by the trial court due to procedural delays.
Findings of Court:
The dismissal of the application was erroneous; the petitioner should have the opportunity to disprove the Will by comparing signatures on the original documents.
Issues: The main issues were whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application for lack of explanation for delay and the necessity of original documents for expert analysis.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that procedural rules should facilitate justice, allowing the introduction of original documents for expert examination to ensure fair adjudication.
Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed.
ORDER:
The petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.374 of 2014 on the file of the Family-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole, filed suit for partition against the respondents/defendants. The petitioner/plaintiff and the 1st respondent/ 1st defendant are the sons of Manduva Seshaiah, born in wedlock with Venkata Subbamma.
2. In the said suit, the petitioner-plaintiff filed I.A.No.1565 of 2024 under Order 7 Rule 14(3) and Section 151 of C.P.C. to receive the original partition deed dated 26.03.1997 in the place of Ex.B.1 to compare the disputed signatures with the unregistered Will Ex.B.5 with the admitted signature i.e., Manduva Seshaiah, who is the father of the petitioner-plaintiff and 1st respondent-1st defendant, in the original partition deed, as the certified copy of the original registered partition deed cannot be compared with Ex.B.5-Will, to disprove the Will executed by Manduva Seshaiah.
3. The said application I.A.No.1565 of 2024 was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the petitioner is unable to explain the day- to-day delay for not filing the same and it is the duty of the petitioner to seek condonation of delay and no such explanation was offered by the petitioner for not filing the delay condonation petition.
4. Order 7 Rule 14 of C.P.C. requires the plaintiff to file all the documents on which he rely along with the plaint and to explain why the plaintiff was unable to file the same at that time. Rule 3 permits to file document which ought to have been filed along with the plaint subsequently, if for filing them at later stage, on obtaining the leave and the leave is not automatic and unless asserting valid reasons for not filing documents along with the plaint and in such circumstances, and in the absence of reasons leave cannot be granted to file the document at later stage.
5. It is well settled that Rules of procedure are hand maid of justice and not its mistress. The procedural law cannot be given precedence over the substantive rights of the parties. The 1st respondent/1st defendant has filed I.A.No.1184 of 2024 under Order VIII rule 1A(3) CPC to receive the Will and other documents (not specifically mentioned in the affidavit) and the petition was allowed by the Court. The 1st respondent /1st defendant has not shown that any prejudice caused to him. No doubt, Order VII Rule 14 CPC provides for production of documents along with the plaint, however, such procedure should be followed as far as possible. In this case, the plaintiff wants to disprove the Will, which is filed at the end of the trial by the 1st respondent/1st defendant, as such, the petitioner reserve his right to produce document/s, which were subsequently produced. And it is pertinent to note that the petitioner herein produced the original registered partition deed, the certified copy of the registered partition deed was already on record and it is marked as Ex.B.1.
6. The Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Abhay Jain and others -vs- State of Madhya Pradesh and another, [2018 SCC Online MP 1839], at paragraph Nos.28 and 29 has held as follows:
"28. It is not in dispute that in the present case both the experts have taken photographs of disputed signatures/thumb impression from the photocopy of the Will. Photocopy of document itself is neither primary nor secondary evidence. It is not advisable for experts to take photograph of photocopies and base their opinion on such photocopies. Expert should always base his opinion on original documents. When an expert forms his opinion on the basis of photocopies.
29. The expert should form opinion on the basis of study of original document. The reason being that the pressure points are analyzed by the hand writing expert, for which original are required. In the absence of original documents, the analysis of a questioned document is limited to the features that survive the copying process. This is like to identify a person behind a cloudy window; the bas
