C.R.P.(P.D).No.1041 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 29.10.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

C.R.P.(P.D) No.1041 of 2020 and

C.M.P.No.5676 of 2020

Ramachandran

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.Selvaraj

2.Lakshmi

...Respondents

Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, is filed to set aside the order and decree dated

04.01.2020, passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.360 of 2008 on the file of

the Additional District Munsif, Tiruvallur.

For Petitioner

: Mr.P.B.Balaji

For Respondents

: Mr.J.Muthukumaran for R1 and R2

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed in

I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.360 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional

1/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(P.D).No.1041 of 2020

District Munsif, Tiruvallur. The suit in O.S.No.360 of 2008 was filed by the

petitioner/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants for the relief of

permanent injunction. The petitioner/plaintiff submitted that petitioner

purchased the suit property from the first respondent/first defendant on

08.02.1995. The case of the respondents/defendants is that the first respondent

had not sold the suit property to the petitioner on 08.02.1995 and executed the

sale deed. It is also specifically denied that the thumb impression in the sale

deed is that of the first respondent. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2019 for

sending the sale deed to the finger print expert in Forensic Science Department,

Chennai for comparing first respondent's thumb impression with his admitted

thumb impression lifted before the Court. This petition was contested by the

respondents. The learned Additional District Munsif, Tiruvallur, on considering

the rival submissions dismissed the petition on the ground that petitioner can

prove the execution of document by following the provision of Section 68 of

Indian Evidence Act. Challenging the said order, this Civil Revision Petition is

preferred.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the attestors

to the sale deed are dead and therefore, only mode available for the petitioner

2/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(P.D).No.1041 of 2020

to prove the execution of the sale deed by first respondent is to send the sale

deed for finger print expert's opinion. That was the reason why the application

was filed and that was dismissed by the learned Additional District Munsif,

Tiruvallur, without considering the merits of the petitioner's. Therefore, he

prayed for setting aside the order of the learned Additional District Munsif,

Tiruvallur, and for allowing the Petition.

3.In response, learned counsel for respondents submitted that, the

fact that respondents, especially first respondent denied the execution of sale

deed dated 08.02.1995 was made known to the petitioner even on 06.04.2009,

when the respondents filed written statement. It was specifically denied in the

written statement that the first respondent executed the sale deed. The suit was

filed in the year 2008. However, this petition for sending the sale deed to finger

print expert's opinion was filed only in 2019, eleven years after filing of the

suit. The suit is pending for cross-examination of DW1. The filing of the

I.A.No.1 of 2019 at this stage, is only an exercise to further delay the disposal

of the case. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents prayed for

confirming the order of the learned Additional District Munsif, Tiruvallur, and

for dismissal of this Civil Revision Petition.

3/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(P.D).No.1041 of 2020

4.Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

5.The suit is filed only on the basis of sale deed dated 08.02.1995.

This is a primary document on the basis of which the petitioner filed his case. It

is claimed that the sale deed had been executed by the first respondent in

favo