Defendants 8 and 10 in the Trial Court (O.S.No.55 of 1998 on the file of Sub Court, Cuddalore) are the revision petitioners before this Court. Sole plaintiff is the lone respondent before me in this revision petition.
2. Suit is one for specific performance of a sale agreement.
3. It is seen that the suit has now been pending at the Court of first instant viz., Trial Court for nearly two decades now.
4. Be that as it may, defendants 8 and 10/revision petitioners before this Court along with one Chinnapappa, who is the 7th defendant in the suit filed I.A.No.1033 of 2013 invoking
Section 46 of Indian Evidence Act with a prayer to compare the signature of one Sundara Padayachi, husband of first defendant with another document.
5. It is seen that the Trial Court dismissed the application inter alia but primarily on the ground that the suit itself has been pending for a very long time. The Trial Court has also taken the view that it is not safe to compare the signatures and decide the veracity of a document on the basis of opinion of expert in this regard.
6. That may not be the right approach. At the moment, I do not express anything more on that approach of the Trial Court, owing to the order I propose to pass.
7. The document in question and the document sought to be compared were directed to be produced and the same have since been produced in this Court by way of additional typed set of papers on 16.07.2014.
8. The document with which the petitioners in the interlocutory application, want the signature of Sundara Padayachi to be compared is a lease deed dated 17.09.1985.
9. It is seen from the sale agreement that Sundara Padayachi has only affixed his left thumb impression (LTI). This is sale agreement dated 17.04.1990. Therefore, the question of comparison of signature does not arise. For this reason, the application being I.A.No.1033 of 2012 taken out by the defendants 8 and 9 (along with defendants No.7) deserves to be dismissed.
10. Therefore, with regard to outcome of dismissal of I.A.No.1033 of 2012, there is no ground to interfere. Be that as it may, it is noticed that as stated supra elsewhere in this order that the suit is of the year 1998 and it is pending in the Court of first instance (Trial court itself) for nearly two decades now. Therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the Trial court to take up this matter on priority and dispose of the same as early as possible and in any event within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
M.SUNDAR,J kkd
11. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.
04.04.2017 kkd Index:Yes/No To The District Munsif Court, Panruti.
C.R.P.No.1805 of 2014 http://www.judis.nic.in