This revision has been directed against the Judgment passed in RCA No.668 of 2008 which had arisen out of an order passed in M.P.No.479 of 2008 in M.P.No.491 of 2007 in E.P.No.538 of 2006 in R.C.O.P.No.2089 of 2005 on the file of Rent Controller(XII Judge, Court of Small Causes) Chennai.
2. The said petition was filed by an obstructor in E.P.No.538 of 2006 to send Ex R1 for comparing the signature of the landlady Caroline Clara with that of her signature in the deposition recorded before the trial Court. The learned Executing Court had dismissed the said petition on the ground that Ex R1 is dated 10.4.2005 whereas the signature contained in the deposition taken in February 2008 holding that even if it is taken that the signature contained in Ex R1 belongs to the landlady that cannot be compared with the signature in the deposition which was taken after a lapse of three years from the date of Ex R1. Aggrieved by the findings of the Executing Court, the obstructor preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA No.668 of 2008 has also taken the same view of the Executing Court had dismissed the appeal holding that there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders of the executing Court in M.P.No.479 of 2008 in M.P.No.491 of 2007 in E.P.No.538 of 2006 in R.C.O.P.No.2089 of 2005.
3 The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner before this Court has produced a document dated 2.6.2001 said to have been contained the signature of the landlady and would request that the executing Court may be compared the signature contained in the document dated 2.6.2001 which has been produced before this Court today with that of the disputed signature in Ex R1 as contemplated under
Section 73 of the Evidence Act to arrive at a conclusion whether Ex R1 is a concocted document or genuine one.
4. With the above observation, this civil revision petition is dismissed before admission. It is open to the revision petitioner to file the original document dated 2.6.2001 containing the signature of the landlady Caroline Clara before the Executing Court to enable the Executing Court to compare the signature contained in the said document of the landlady with that of the disputed signature in Ex R1 dated 10.4.2005. It is made clear that the executing Court need not be carried away by any of the observation made in this order by this Court in arriving at a conclusion in E.P.No.538 of 2006 and to dispose of the same within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is also dismissed.
sg
----------------------------
C.R.P(NPD) No.181 of 2009 A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN,J Today, this matter is posted under the caption "for being mentioned".
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The grievance of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that inspite of a direction given by this Court in C.R.P(NPD) No.181 of 2009, at paragraph 3, the learned XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai has not compared the signature contained in the admitted document dated 2.6.2001(signature of landlady) with that of the disputed signature in Ex R1 as per the provisions contemplated under
Section 73 of the Evidence Act and trying to dispose of E.P.No.538 of 2006 itself. Under such circumstances, the learned Rent Controller/XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai is directed to exercise its power under
Section 73 of the Evidence Act for comparing the signature of the landlady in the admitted document dated 2.6.2001 with that of the disputed signature in Ex R1 before passing any order in E.P. No.538 of 2006.
15.04.2009 sg