Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.Thamilselvi, J
Mubeena Bee – Appellant
Versus
Parveen – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners challenge trial court dismissal of signature verification application. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. pleadings sufficiently allege forgery by second attestor. (Para 3) |
| 3. forensic examination required to protect fair trial rights. (Para 4 , 5) |
ORDER
Challenging the impugned order passed in I.A.No.6 of 2024 in O.S.No.225 of 2019 by the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Krsihangiri, the Revision Petitioners/plaintiffs preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
2. Before the trial court, the Revision Petitioners filed an application under Order 10 Rule 3 and Order 26 Rule 10 r/w Sec.151 of C.P.C., praying to send the signature of second attestor in the sale deed vide document No.221 of 2018 for comparison with the sale deed vide document No.483/2018 stating that on the date of alleged execution, the 2nd revision petitioner/2nd attesting witness was not available in that place and he was at Bangalore. The signature found in the said document has also been fabricated and he has not signed as a witness. Hence, he prayed to send the document to compare signature with the admitted signature found in the sale deed dated 24.01.2018, which is contemporary in nature. The said application
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
