Assailing Ext.P3 order, the petitioner before the court blow has come up with this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. The suit, O.S. 164 of 2010, was a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale. The respondent before this Court had sought to have the said agreement sent for expert opinion and opinion has already been obtained.
3. The petitioner says that the other signed copy of the agreement was with the respondent which contained endorsement of subsequent payments alleged to have been made. The petitioner filed I.A.3953 of 2011 seeking a direction to the respondent to produce the said agreement and the same was produced before the court below. The claim is that on examination of the agreement produced by the O.P.(C). 2281/2014.
2 respondent, it was found that it was not the correct copy of the original and the signature of the petitioner found in the same is not that of the petitioner. He therefore filed a petition to have the copy sent for expert opinion. The said I.A., namely I.A. 565 of 2014 in O.S. 164 of 2010, was dismissed by the court below finding that no purpose will be served by sending the copy produced by the respondent for expert opinion. Assailing the above finding, learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that it is necessary to have the copy send for expert opinion since it contained endorsements which were not carried out by the petitioner though attributed to him and therefore the court below was not justified in not granting the relief.
4. It is significant to notice that the original agreement has been sent for expert opinion and opinion has been received. The court below has adverted to the said report. What is now sought to be sent is the copy of the agreement which the petitioner says differs from the original.
O.P.(C). 2281/2014.
3
5. One fails to understand how a copy could be sent for expert opinion. The lower court observed that by sending the copy for expert opinion, no purpose will be served and it is not necessary for a proper decision in the suit.
No grounds are made out to interfere with the finding of the court below. This Original Petition is without merits and it is dismissed.
sb.
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE