HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1270 of 2014 Date: 11-07-2014 Between:
Khirun Bee .. Petitioner AND Md. Yusuf and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1270 of 2014 ORDER:
The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 24-02-2014 in I.A.No.552 of 2013 in A.S.No.8 of 2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, dismissing the petition filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for sending the simple sale deed dated 05-03-2001 marked as Ex.B.1 to handwriting expert for comparison of signature with the admitted signature of the 1st respondent.
2. The facts leading to the Civil Revision Petition are that the 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.41 of 2004 seeking decree for eviction or delivery of possession in which the revision petitioner taken a plea that she purchased the suit property from the 1st respondent herein under simple sale deed dated 05-03-2001 and on contest, the suit was decreed against which A.S.No.8 of 2011 is filed by the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner filed I.A.No.552 of 2013 in the appeal for sending simple sale deed dated 05-03-2001, which is marked as Ex.B.1 in the suit, stating that due to poverty and financial problems the revision petitioner could not take steps for sending the document earlier. The said petition was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court holding that the petitioner did not take such steps for sending the document before the trial court. Assailing the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. On perusal of the material on record, it appears that though the suit is of the year 2004, the petitioner had never taken any steps to send Ex.B.1-simple sale deed to handwriting expert for comparison before the trial Court and even when the appeal was also filed, the petitioner did not take such steps till 2013 though the appeal is filed in the year 2011 and only in 2013, the said application is filed. If really the revision petitioner intended to send Ex.B.1-simple sale deed, she could have taken such steps before the trial Court and not before the appellate Court, inasmuch as sending of documents to Handwriting Expert for opinion at the appellate stage amounts to allowing additional evidence in the appeal. The Court below relying on the judgment in V. Chidambara Reddy v. K. Govinda Reddy (2008 (3) APLJ 34), dismissed the petition holding that sending of Ex.B.1 to Handwriting Expert for opinion at appellate stage would amount to allowing additional evidence in appeal and that only to protract the proceedings, the petitioner filed the present petition. The reasons assigned by the Court below are just and reasonable and do not suffer from any infirmity or irregularity calling for interference of this court in exercise of restricted revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and hence, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J Date: 11-07-2014 Ksn