This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 29.07.2004, made in I.A.No.120 of 2004 in O.S.No.310 of 1996, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Hosur.
2. The Petitioner is the plaintiff, one Maqbool Jan was the defendant in O.S.No.284 of 1995, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri. Petitioner filed the said suit for a specific performance of agreement of sale dated 25.03.1994, against one Maqbool Jan, the deceased defendant. After filing written statement, the defendant died. The respondents 2 to 10 were impleaded as legal heirs of the deceased defendant. Trial commenced. Petitioner let in evidence and closed his side. The deceased defendant was examined as DW1 and the suit was posted for cross examination of DW1. At that time, petitioner filed I.A.No.120 of 2004 to send the lay-out plan of the suit property marked as Ex.A8 in the suit, containing the signature of Maqbool Jan, which is to be compared with the other admitted signature of said Maqbool Jan in the vakalat and written statement, to get expert opinion with regard to the genuineness of signature of the Maqbool Jan in the lay-out plan in Ex.A8.
3. According to the petitioner, after agreement of sale dated 25.03.2004, the first defendant handed over the possession of the suit property. The petitioner formed lay-out. The first defendant signed in the lay-out plan. The petitioner entered into an agreement of sale dated 26.01.1995, with one Babu lal to sell 38 plots to Babu lal bearing plot Nos.8 to 15, 16 to 25, 42 to 51 and 52 to 61. The first defendant signed the said agreement also and those documents are marked as Ex.A7 and Ex.A8. The respondents herein denied the signature of the first defendant in the lay-out plan and denied handed over possession of the suit property to the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petitioner filed application to send the document for comparison of signature of the first defendant in lay out plan to compare with the disputed signature in lay out plan with admitted signature in vakalat and written statement, filed by the first defendant.
4. The fourth respondent filed counter affidavit and the same was adopted by the respondents 2, 3 and 5 to 10. According to the respondents, the first defendant filed written statement, stating that there is a material alteration in the agreement of sale and first defendant denied handing over the possession of the suit property. The signature found in Ex.A8 lay-out is not that of the signature of the first defendant. The petitioner has filed present application when the suit was posted for cross examination of DW1, only to drag on the proceedings.
5. The learned Judge, considering the averments in the affidavit, counter affidavit, arguments of the counsel for parties, judgments relied on by the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner has not mentioned the agreement of sale with Babu lal, lay-out plan, Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 in the plaint averments and in the cause of action column and that those documents are not necessary to decide the issue in the suit for specific performance, dismissed the application.
6. Against the said order of dismissal dated 29.07.2004, made in I.A.No.120 of 2004 in O.S.No.310 of 1996, the present civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner.
7. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and respondents 2 to 10 and perused the materials available on record.
8. The petitioner has filed suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 25.03.1994. In the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, it is for the petitioner to prove the genuineness of the agreement of sale and that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The issue whether the signature found in the Ex.A7 and A8, agreement of sale and lay-out plan are that of first defendant is not relevant to decide the issue in the suit. The petitioner has not stated anything about the Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 in the averments in the plaint and cause of action column. The learned Judge has considered the lay-out plan, Ex.A8 and found that it is not prepared by the authorised person and held that it does not contain any details of the owner and other particulars. The learned Judge has considered all the materials on record in proper perspective, exercising his powers conferred on him properly and dismissed the application. In the circumstances, there is no irregularity or illegality warranting interference with the order of the learned trial Judge dated, 29.07.2004.
9. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
gsa Since the suit is of the year 1995, the learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur, is directed to dispose of the suit, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.