THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4302 of 2010 Dated:28.10.2010 Between: Pala Lakshmi Kanthamma. ….Petitioner And Buddana Suryachandra Rao. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4302 of 2010 ORDER: The plaintiff in O.S.No.278 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, is the petitioner herein. She filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from interfering with the possession of the suit schedule property. The respondent is opposing the suit contending that the plaintiff executed the settlement deed 22.09.1982 in favour of her father Nethala Raja Rao, who in turn executed sale deed in his favour. After receiving the written statement, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1529 of 2005 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to send the settlement deed dated 22.09.1982 to handwriting expert. She asserted that she never executed the same, and her signature is forged. At the time of filing the petition, the petitioner had only the Xerox copy filed by the respondent. Therefore, the same is kept pending. Subsequently, the respondent filed I.A.No.1564 of 2010 to summon the original settlement deed from Mudunuru Large Seized Cooperative Society. The same was summoned and was marked as Ex.B12. At that stage, the petitioner pressed her 2005 application, which was opposed by the other side. Considering the background and the rival contentions, the Court below rejected the prayer to send the document to handwriting expert, inter alia, observing that she filed the suit for mere permanent injunction, and therefore, what is relevant is the question of possession alone. In this Civil Revision Petition the Counsel for the petitioner contends that when both the parties to the suit for injunction are claiming under two separate documents, it becomes imperative for the Court at least to incidentally decide the question of title. Therefore, he would urge that sending the disputed settlement deed to handwriting expert is necessary. This Court has given careful consideration to the background and the submissions made by the Counsel for the petitioner. Nobody would dispute and deny that in a suit for injunction what is the most relevant issue is whether the plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit and whether there is likelihood of legal injury by reason of the continued interference with the possession by the defendant. If the plaintiff claims title, but fails to prove possession, it is not always necessary to draw presumption that possession follows title, especially, when the defendant disputes the possession itself. In that view of the matter, the trial Court was right in holding that possession is important in a suit for injunction. Secondly, when the petitioner filed application in 2005 nothing prevented her to summon the settlement deed, which was with the Cooperative Society. The same is sought to be explained that the petitioner filed the application to summon the document from the custody of the defendant, in vain, and later she also served notice on the defendant to produce the document, in vain. Nothing prevented her at that stage to approach this Court and seek appropriate remedy. As seen from the impugned order, the trial is at advanced stage, and at this point of time it is not proper to send the document to handwriting expert, which has effect of delaying the trial and disposal of the suit. Further, it is well settled that unless and until the error pointed out is not one which cannot be taken care of and corrected at a later stage and the wrong done, if any, would be set right and rights and equities adjusted in appeal or revision preferred at the conclusion of the proceedings, a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not lie (see Surya Dev Rai v Ram Chander Rai[1]). The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously as already directed by this Court in the earlier Civil Revision Petition No.5980 of 2009. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 28.10.2010 vs [1] (2003) 6 SCC 675