The Hon’ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara Civil Revision Petition No.1512 of 2025

Order:

This Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 11.03.2025 in I.A.No.93 of 2025 in O.S.No.12 of 2014 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Medchal, wherein, a petition filed under Section 39 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (old Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act) to send Exs.B9 and B10 to compare the signatures therein with the signatures of respondents/plaintiffs on the plaint and vakalat in the main suit along with Ex.B14 to a handwriting expert, has been dismissed.

2. Heard Sri R. Anurag, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants and Sri A. Sanjay, learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed suit seeking declaration of title, delivery of vacant possession and declaration of sale deed document bearing No.1708 of 2014, dated 12.05.2014 as illegal and sham and for other reliefs with respect to suit schedule property consisting of land admeasuring 140 sq.yds., situated at Sy.No.s609 and 610, Phase-II, Balaji Nagar, Jawahar Nagar, Chennapur Vilalge, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The respondents’ claim is that respondent No.3 is an illiterate woman and she can barely write her name in Telugu and most often, puts thumb impression on all the documents where she is required to do so. The respondent No.3 has not executed any documents much less the Agreements of sale which contains her signature. The petitioners/defendants have filed written statement asserting that respondent No.3 has signed on two Agreements of sale dated 29.06.2000 in favour of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. On the basis of said Agreements of sale, the petitioners are opposing the suit claim. In order to defend their case, the petitioners intend to establish that respondent No.3 has signed on the Agreements of sale dated 29.06.2000 under Exs.B9 and B10 by comparing the said signatures with the signatures on plaint, vakalat and Memorandum of deposit of title deeds bearing document No.1364 of 2016 to be sent for expert opinion by invoking the provisions of Section 39 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Before the Trial court, Exs.B9, B10 and B14 were marked through DW1 during chief examination conducted commonly in O.S.No.12 of 2014 (O.S.No.104 of 2016) and 27 of 2016. The respondents did not raise any legal ground to oppose sending of the disputed signatures for comparison by a Handwriting expert except raising the concern of delay in filing the petition. No other reason is cited for opposing the petition. Without considering said factors, the learned Trial Court dismissed the I.A on the sole ground that the petition is filed at the fag end of the trial. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred.

4. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that there is an erroneous finding about respondent No.3 is not having habit of appending her signature but affixing thumb impression over any document. However, there is an observation that the disputed documents ought to have been referred to a Handwringing expert by the respondents and not the petitioners. Dismissal is nothing but violation of right of respondent No.3 who intends to establish her defence and sending the documents for verification to a Handwriting expert would help in establishing the relevant fact i.e. respondent No.3 is in the habit of subscribing signatures and has executed Exs.B9 and B10. The revision petitioners pleaded that the dispute is around execution of documents and therefore, it is crucial to prove the same by sending the document to a Handwriting expert. The denial of such a relief results in miscarriage of justice.

5. During arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the impugned order alleging that the only reason for dismissing the petition is that the same is filed at a belated stage in a