THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2234 OF 2014 Dated:25-09-2014 Between:
S. Sumesh Reddy
... PETITIONER
AND
S. Devender Reddy
.. RESPONDENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2234 OF 2014 ORDER:
The petitioner filed O.S No. 684 of 2008 in the Court of XIII Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court) , City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the respondent for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 19-05-2004. In his written statement, the respondent denied the execution thereof. The trial of the suit is in progress.
The petitioner filed I.A N0. 602 of 2013 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, with a prayer to send the agreement of sale marked as Ex.A-1 together with certain other documents for examination by an expert. In the I.A., the petitioner mentioned two documents for comparison, namely, the original general power of attorney dated 21-06-2007 and the original of IT Form No.2D, dated 31-03-2003. The application was opposed by the respondent. Through its order dated 24-08-2013, the trial Court allowed the I.A directing that Ex.A-1 on the one hand and the original of the general power of attorney dated 21-06-2007 and the written statement shall be sent to the expert for examination. The grievance of the petitioner is that the income tax return of the year 2003 which is proximity in time to Ex.A-1 was not included in the list.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
The petitioner wanted the comparison of Ex.A-1 to be undertaken with reference to two undisputed documents said to have been executed by the respondent. The first is the general power of attorney dated 21-06-2007 and the second is the income tax return. The trial Court was convinced that Ex.A-1 deserves to be examined by an expert. However, for one reason or the other, it omitted to direct the inclusion of the income tax return in the context of comparison. This Court is of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the income tax return is also sent for comparison.
Hence, the C.R.P is allowed and the trial Court shall include the original of the income tax return of the year 2003 which is already said to be in the Court, for comparison with Ex.A-1 along with other documents which are mentioned in the order in the I.A. The trial Court shall make an endeavour to obtain the report as early as possible and dispose of the suit within two months from the date of receipt of the same.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
25-09-2014
ks