A party must be afforded a fair opportunity to present evidence, especially in signature comparison cases relevant to ownership disputes.

ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by plaintiff against the order dated 05.09.2023 in I.A.No. 294 of 2023 in O.S.No. 85 of 2016 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy (for short ‘the trial Court’), wherein, the I.A. filed to send the disputed signature on the simple sale deed, dated 07.11.1988 along with the admitted signature of the petitioner to the handwriting expert for comparison, is dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff/revision petitioner herein filed the suit against the respondents/defendants for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule land bearing Survey No. 26/EE to extent of Acre 0.26 guntas and Survey No. 55/14U to an extent of Acre 0.27 guntas in total Acre 1.13 guntas, situated at Srinivasapuram village, Wanaparthy Mandal and District. The plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and his name was mutated in the revenue records in respect of suit schedule land. On 12.11.2016 while the plaintiff is about to cultivate the suit schedule land, the defendants obstructed the plaintiff and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the said suit schedule land. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed a suit. Along with the suit, he also filed I.A.No.

294 of 2023 under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code , seeking to send the disputed signature on the simple sale deed, dated 07.11.1988 along with the admitted signature of the petitioner to the handwriting expert for comparison.

4. By the impugned order dated 05.09.2023, the trial Court has dismissed the I.A. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the present revision petition.

5. Heard Sri. M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff. Though notice was served upon the respondents/defendants, none appeared on their behalf. Perused the material available on record.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff contended that the petitioner is a retired employee and signatures of the contemporary period are available in the government office, however, the trial without giving an opportunity for obtaining the contemporary signatures simply dismissed the said I.A. Hence, the learned counsel prayed to allow the revision petition by setting aside the impugned order. 7. This Court has perused the record. It is the case of the respondents that the revision petitioner and his brother namely Undekoti Narayana executed simple sale deed on 07.11.1988 in favour of defendant No. 3 and the father of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and also entered their names in the pahanies as possessors and cultivators over the suit schedule land, however, the said suit schedule land was not mutated and the same is pending before the Tahasildar. Admittedly, the revision petitioner is denying execution of simple sale deed dated 07.11.1988 and also denying his alleged signature on the said document. It is pertinent to note that the revision petitioner could submit his contemporary signature to send the same to expert along with disputed simple sale deed while referring the said document. However, by way of impugned order, the trial Court dismissed the said I.A without giving fair opportunity to the revision petitioner to prove his case adducing substantial evidence. Therefore, this Court feels that ends of justice would meet if the contemporary signature is sent to the hand writing expert to compare the same with the disputed signature on the simple sale deed dated 07.11.198