THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1530 OF 2014 DATED 10TH OCTOBER, 2014 Between:
Karre Thirupathi Reddy … Petitioner and Gaddam Veeraiah and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1530 OF 2014 O R D E R The first defendant in O.S. No.28 of 2011 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Warangal, is the petitioner. He is aggrieved by the order dated 26.03.2014 passed by the trial Court in I.A. No.593 of 2013 in O.S. No.28 of 2011 filed by the plaintiff therein. The said suit was filed for a declaration that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit schedule property and for cancellation of the registered sale deed bearing document No.842/1980 dated 29.02.1980. A consequential direction was also sought to evict the first defendant from the suit schedule property and deliver possession thereof to the plaintiff. The copy of the plaint manifests that a certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 29.02.1980 was filed therewith.
I.A. No.593 of 2013 was filed in the suit by the plaintiff, the first respondent herein, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to send for comparison the thumb impression in the sale deed dated 29.02.1980 with the admitted thumb impression of the plaintiff obtained in open Court. Though the first defendant/petitioner herein contested the said I.A., the trial Court accepted the plea of the plaintiff/first respondent by its order dated 26.03.2014 permitting comparison of the thumb impression in the disputed sale deed with the thumb impression of the plaintiff obtained in open Court. Aggrieved thereby, the first defendant/petitioner approached this Court by way of this CRP.
As the first respondent/plaintiff failed to put in his appearance despite service of notice being effected upon his counsel in the Court below and taking note of the fact that the original sale deed dated 29.02.1980 was not available for comparison of the thumb impression therein with the plaintiff’s thumb impression obtained in open Court, this Court granted interim suspension of the order under revision on 08.08.2014. The matter was adjourned to 22.08.2014 and again to 12.09.2014 to enable the first respondent/plaintiff to put in his appearance before this Court. As there was no development in this regard, the matter was again adjourned to 10.10.2014. Today also, there is no representation for the first respondent/plaintiff. The matter is therefore taken up for final disposal.
The facts on record establish that the original sale deed dated 29.02.1980 was not available with the trial Court for sending the same to the expert for comparison of the thumb impression therein with that obtained from the plaintiff in open Court. Unless the original document is made available for such comparison, no credibility can be placed on the opinion of the expert on the basis of a photo copy of the document. The thumb impression in the original alone would be amenable to scientific study and not a smudged photo copy thereof. The trial Court, instead of taking steps to procure the original document for such comparison, directed comparison of the thumb impression in the certified copy, which presumably was a photo copy. The order under revision therefore cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside.
The CRP is allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.
SANJAY KUMAR, J 10th OCTOBER, 2014
Svv