HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.568/2010 DT.25-6-2010 Mummareddi Satyavathi. …Petitioner V. Mutyala Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Chowdari ..Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.568/2010 ORAL ORDER: This revision by the defendant under Art.227 of the Constitution of India to revise the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddpuram dt. 27-1-2010 passed in IA No.865/2009 in OS No.31/1999, whereunder petition filed by the petitioner/defendant under Sec. 151 CPC to send the documents to the handwriting expert, namely, vakalath, written statement chief examination affidavit, and agreement of sale marked as Ex.A-1 for comparing the admitted signatures thereon with the disputed signature in the Stamp Register, marked as Ex.X-1. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dt. 27-8-2009 or in the alternative for passing a decree for Rs.1,75,489-60 being the advance amount received by the petitioner-defendant towards sale consideration. The petitioner- defendant filed a detailed written statement stating that the plaintiff concocted the alleged agreement of sale relating to the Ac.2-00 of land belonging to the defendant, which is earmarked for the marriage of the third daughter Satya Devi, and misleading the defendant, the plaintiff obtained the signature stating that the same is necessary for depositing some amount in the name of her grand son ie., plaintiff’s son when she visited their house in the month of July, 1999. The agreement was not written or executed at Vetapalem village and the alleged stamp was not purchased by the defendant at any time. The alleged stamp must have been procured by the plaintiff in the name of the defendant. She never signed in any book of the stamp vendor and she is not aware S. Venkateswara Rao, stamp vendor of Morampudi village. The alleged agreement is concocted and forged one. The plaintiff never paid any amount, much less Rs.1,70,000/- as alleged in the plaint, and he has no capacity to pay such a huge amount on 23-7-1999. The written statement was filed as long as in the month of March, 2000. During the course of trial, the petitioner-defendant filed chief examination affidavit as D.W.1 stating that the plaintiff obtained her signatures stating that that same are necessary for depositing some amount in the name of plaintiff’s son when she visited their house in the month of July, 1999 at Srinagaram near Chelluru. In the cross-examination, she admitted that Ex.A-1 bears her signatures. But she denied a suggestion that she signed Ex.A-1 after going through the contents of it, and that after scribing Ex.A-1 it was read over to her before obtaining signatures. After cross-examination of D.W.1 on 22- 6-2009 and 6-7-2009, she (defendant) filed the above IA on 1st September, 2009 for the reliefs as aforementioned. The trial court dismissed IA holding that Ex.X-1-stamp register book was produced before the court on 27-8-2009, whereas the affidavit filed in support of the above petition was prepared on 3-7-2009, subsequently corrected as 1-9-2009, even before production of Ex.X-1. Ex.X-1 is not a suit document and it is only a stamp register book and there is no necessity to send Ex.X-1 for comparison and it is only corroborative evidence on record but not the document for comparison. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that grant of relief for specific performance is not only discretionary but also equitable relief and court can take into consideration the plea put forth by the defendant herself that she has not purchased the stamp and executed the agreement, which no doubt will some force. In the written statement filed by the petitioner-defendant, she took a plea that she has not purchased the stamp in her name from the stamp vendor and she has not singed in the stamp register. In view of the same, there is no bar for taking plea even before Ex.X-1 is produced. Having regard to the fact that the defendant is admitted her signature on the agreement of sale, it is immaterial whether she purchased the stamp or not. When the petitioner-defendant admits the signature on Ex.A- 1-suit document and denied the suggestion that she has gone through the contents therein and stated that she signed blank papers, it is for her to lead evidence that while she was in the house of P.W.1 one such blank papers signed by her was used by the plaintiff to have a wrongful gain. In view of the same, it is always open for the trial court to compare the signature on Ex.X-1 with that of the vakalth, written statement, chief examination affidavit and agreement of sale. In view of the same, no infirmity is discernible in the impugned order passed by the trial court in not sending Ex.X-1 to the handwriting expert warranting interference by this court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date:25-6-2010 kmr