* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY + Civil Revision Petition No.156 of 2010 % 31-05-2010 Between: # Valladasu Alivelu PETITIONER VS. $ 1. Moguthula Yadaiah & Anr. ..RESPONDENTS ! COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: MR.P.PRABHAKAR REDDY ^COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: MR. B.MAHENDER REDDY < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: 1. AIR 2005 A.P. 180 2. AIR 2006 A.P. 233 3. AIR 2004 Allahabad 394 THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.156 of 2010 Dated:31st May, 2010 Between: Valladasu Alivelu D/o.Late Moguthala Narsimha ..... Petitioner AND 1. Moguthula Yadaiah & Anr. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.156 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 15.12.2009 passed in I.A.No.507 of 2009 in O.S.No.63 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, at Deverakonda, whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC. 2. Background facts in a nutshell leading to filing of this Civil Revision Petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.63 of 2006 are: The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit being O.S.No.63 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Devarakonda, against the respondents/defendants for partition and separate possession of her share in the suit schedule properties. It is the version of the plaintiff that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties and she being the daughter of Moguthala Narsimha is entitled to half share in the suit schedule properties and whereas, the 1st defendant, who is her paternal uncle, is entitled for another half share. The defendants filed written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiff. It is the version of the defendants that the plaintiff relinquished her share in the suit schedule properties under a document dated 22.05.1990 after receiving Rs.5,000/-. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. The defendants got the relinquishment deed impounded and paid the necessary stamp duty and penalty on 07.09.2009 and marked the relinquishment deed on 14.09.2009. Both the parties closed their evidence. When the suit was coming up for arguments, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.507 of 2009 to send Ex.B1 relinquishment deed alongwith admitted thumb impressions of the plaintiff to the Director for State Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, for opinion. The defendants filed counter resisting the said application. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties and on considering the material brought on record, dismissed the application on the ground that the plaintiff came up with the said application to delay the proceedings in the main suit, by order dated 15.12.2009. For better appreciation, I may refer para.10 of the order impugned in the revision, which reads as hereunder: “As per the guidelines given in the above Chapter-IX for trial of suits, the present matter falls under clause (7) i.e., any other matter or proceedings necessary “to be considered or taken prior to the trial of the suit”. This step of sending Ex.B1 original ordinary relinquishment deed along with the admitted and taken thumb impression of the petitioner to the Director for State Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad to know the age of the thumb impression and entire writing of the Ex.B1 document and whether plaintiff is the executant of Ex.B1, should have been taken by the petitioner earlier before commencement of trial in the main suit. But it is not done in the case. Therefore, it appears that only to delay the proceedings in main suit, which is very old and identified one, this petition is filed. There are no valid grounds to allow the petition.” 3. Notice before admission came to ordered on 27.01.2010. The respondents entered appearance through a counsel. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff and learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the respondents/defendants marked the relinquishment deed as Ex.B1 on 14.09.2009 after paying necessary stamp duty and penalty and till then there was no occasion for the petitioner/plaintiff to move an application for sending the document to the handwriting expert. A further submission has been made that the opinion of the handwriting expert on the thumb impression appearing on the document in dispute is very much essential for proper adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants submits that the respondents/defendants have specifically pleaded in the written statement regarding the execution of the relinquishment deed by the petitioner-plaintiff on 22.05.1990 and the petitioner remained silent for about three years and in which case, the observation made by the trial Court that the petitioner moved the application to delay the proceedings in the suit does not warrant interference of this Court. A further submission has been made that the petitioner/plaintiff did not choose to file any rejoinder after the written statement is filed by the respondents/defendants and in which case, whatever averments pleaded in the written statement stand uncontroverted. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the following decisions of this Court in Smt.Renu Devi Kedia v. Smt. Seetha Devi[1] and Nimmagadda Padmanabha Rao v. Smt. Kosaraju Satyavathi[2]. 7. Both the decisions relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants relate to sending the document to an handwriting expert after a considerable delay of filing the suit. Coming to the facts of the case on hand, the petitioner/plaintiff is an illiterate and according to the respondents/defendants, she affixed her thumb impression on the relinquishment deed, which has been exhibited as Ex.B1. When Ex.B1 relinquishment deed was marking through DW.1, a specific suggestion was put to DW.1 that the relinquishment deed-Ex.B1 has been pressed into service to defeat the interest of the plaintiff and that the thumb impression appearing on Ex.B1 is not that of the petitioner/plaintiff. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants, placing reliance on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Mawana Stand Vyapar Samiti & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.[3], contends that non-filing of rejoinder affidavit after the written statement of the defendants, amounts to the admission of the uncontroverted pleadings in the written statement. 9. Indisputably, by the time the defendants filed written statement, the document sought to be relied on by them was not properly stamped. Unless the document is properly stamped and exhibited, there has been no occasion to the petitioner/plaintiff to get the document examined by the expert with regard to the genuineness of the thumb impression appearing thereon. Therefore, the said decision has no application to the facts of the case on hand. Few dates are required to be noted, which are relevant for adjudication of this revision. The respondents/defendants paid stamp duty and penalty on Ex.B1-relinquishment deed, on 07.09.2009 and got the same marked as Ex.B1 through DW.1 on 14.09.2009. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the petition to send the document to the handwriting expert on 16.11.2009. In the given facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the petition moved by the petitioner/plaintiff, which is within two months of marking Ex.B1, is to drag on the proceedings in the suit. The observation made by the trial Court that the petitioner moved the application to send the document to an expert to drag on the proceedings is contrary to the material brought on record. 10. In that view of the matter, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and consequently, I.A.No.507 of 2009 in O.S.No.63 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Devarakonda, stands allowed. The document-Ex.B1 is ordered to be sent to the Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, along with admitted thumb impressions (both right and left). No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:31st May, 2010. Note: L.R. copy to be marked. B/O cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.156 of 2010 Dated:31st May, 2010 [1] AIR 2005 A.P. 180 2 AIR 2006 A.P. 233 [3] AIR 2004 Allahabad 394