HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.3640 of 2011 DATED: 16.09.2011 Between: Khaiser Jehan .. Petitioner And Mohd. Rayeesuddin Farooqui and another .. Respondents O R D E R:- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 20.07.2011, passed in I.A.No.51 of 2011 in O.S.No.433 of 2010 by XV Junior Civil Judge-cum-III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, whereby the application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 151 CPC to reject the document i.e. rental deed, dated 01.04.1976, filed by the first respondent herein, as the same is forged and fabricated, was dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the order under revision. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the rental agreement, dated 01.04.1976, filed by the first respondent alleged to have been executed by his mother, for the purpose of comparison of the signatures on it with that of the gift deed, dated 14.12.1981, is forged and fabricated and that, neither the petitioner nor the first respondent is a party to the said rental deed, as such, the impugned order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking to reject the said document filed by the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the first respondent has contended that the gift deed, dated 14.12.1981, which was filed by the petitioner is a forged one and the signatures on the rental agreement have to be compared with that of the gift deed, as such, the trial Court rightly dismissed the present application of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner is the elder sister of the respondents. The 2nd respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.201 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for partition of the suit schedule property and the petitioner herein claims independent right over a part of the suit schedule property by virtue of gift and relinquished deeds. While so, the 2nd respondent disputed the very execution of the gift deed in favour of the petitioner and also disputed the very signature of his mother on the same. From this, it is apparent that there are certain disputes among the petitioner and the respondents with regard to the alleged gift deed said to have been executed by the mother of the parties. Such being the case, mere receipt of the rental agreement, dated 01.04.1976, by the trial Court for the purpose of comparison of the signatures on it with those of the alleged gift deed does not amount to its acceptance or determination of the genuineness of the document. The burden lies on the 1st respondent to prove whether the signature on the rental agreement is true or false. Hence, the trial Court having rightly observed that the genuineness of the rental agreement cannot be decided at the interlocutory stage, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for rejection of the rental agreement, and as such, the well-reasoned order of the trial Court cannot be interfered with. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM OHAMMED, J 16.09.2011 bcj