1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.10.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.734 and 735 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 S.Murugeshan .. Petitioner/Petitioner/ Plaintiff in both C.R.Ps. Vs. 1.P.Velusamy 2.S.Thangammal .. Respondents/Respondents/ Defendants in both C.R.Ps. Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal orders dated 25.01.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application Nos.583 and 584 of 2009 in Original Suit No.124 of 2008 by the Sub Court, Palani For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh in both C.R.Ps. For Respondent : Mr.T.Leninkumar No.1 in C.R.P(PD)No.735 of 2011 COMMON ORDER These Civil Revision Petitions have been directed against the orders passed in Interlocutory Application Nos.583 and 584 of 2009 in Original Suit No.124 of 2008 by the Sub Court, Palani. 2. The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.124 of 2008 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of partition and separate possession of his share, wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants. During pendency of the same, the revision petitioner/plaintiff as petitioner has filed the petitions in question in Interlocutory Application Nos.583 and 584 of 2009 so as to direct the first respondent to produce the documents mentioned in Interlocutory Application No.583 of 2009 and also to take effective steps for comparing the disputed signature of the second respondent with her admitted signature. The Court below has dismissed both the petitions. Against the dismissal orders passed by the Court below, these Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that the revision petitioner/plaintiff has purchased some extent in the suit property under a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 registered sale deed dated 07.05.2008 from the second defendant and the first defendant claims to have purchased the suit property from the alleged power of attorney agent of the second defendant under a registered sale deed dated 18.02.2008 and the second defendant has not executed any power of attorney deed in favour of anybody and therefore the signature found on the alleged power of attorney deed is not the signature of the second defendant and under the said circumstances these petitions have been filed for getting the reliefs sought for therein, but the Court below has erroneously dismissed the same and therefore the dismissal orders passed by the Court below are liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has contended that the second respondent is the owner of the suit property and she executed a power of attorney deed in favour of her daughter-in-law and she sold the suit property in favour of the first defendant on 18.02.2008 and further the second defendant has not stated anything about the execution of power of attorney deed and under the said circumstances these petitions are not maintainable and therefore the orders passed by the Court below are perfectly correct and the same do not warrant interference. 5. As stated earlier, Original Suit No.124 of 2008 has been instituted for the reliefs of partition and separate possession. The plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.124 of 2008 mainly on the ground that he purchased some extent of suit property under a registered sale deed dated 07.05.2008 from the second defendant. The first defendant has also claimed right over the suit property stating that he purchased the suit property from the power of attorney agent of the second defendant under a registered sale deed dated 18.02.2008. 6. The only point that now winched to the fore in the present proceedings is as to whether the second defendant has executed the alleged power of attorney deed in favour of her daughter-in-law and she sold the suit property in favour of the first defendant under a registered sale deed dated 18.02.2008. In the instant case, the second defendant has remained ex-parte and she has not supported the case of either party. Unless the second defendant has been examined on either side, the Court cannot come to a definite conclusion as to whether she has executed the alleged power of attorney deed in favour of her daughter-in-law or denied its execution. Under the said circumstances the reliefs sought for in the present petitions cannot be granted. The Court below after considering the contentions putforth on either side has rightly dismissed both the petitions. In the light of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any error in the orders passed by the Court below and altogether these Civil Revision Petitions deserve to be dismissed. 7. In fine, these Civil Revision Petitions deserve dismissal and accordingly are dismissed without costs and the orders passed in Interlocutory Application Nos.583 and 584 of 2009 in Original Suit No.124 of 2008 by the Sub Court, Palani https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 are confirmed. However the revision petitioner can exercise his liberty to take further action with regard to alleged power of attorney deed after examining the second defendant as a witness. The Sub Court, Palani is directed to dispose of Original Suit No.124 of 2008 before the end of January, 2012. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To The Subordinate Judge , Palani smn rl/2c – 20.10.2011 COMMON ORDER MADE IN C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.734 and 735 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 12.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/