1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:13.10.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.915 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 G.Narayanaswami :Petitioner -Vs- 1.Dhanalakshmi 2.Shanthi 3.Pushpam 4.Maheswari :Respondents Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 15.02.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.818 of 2010 in Original Suit No.200 of 2005 by the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar. For Petitioner:Mr.N.Dilip Kumar ORDER The order dated 15.02.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.818 of 2010 in Original Suit No.200 of 2005 by the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2.The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.200 of 2005 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of declaration, partition and separate possession, wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants. During pendency of the same, the present petition has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.818 of 2010 for the purpose mentioned therein. The Court below has dismissed the same Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred at the instance of the petitioner/ plaintiff as revision petitioner. 3.Considering the nature of the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.818 of 2010, notice need not be sent to the respondents and this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that Original Suit No.200 of 2005 has been instituted for the reliefs of declaration, partition and separate possession and the main defence taken on the side of the first defendant is that the defendants 2 and 3 have sold the suit property in her favour and further the plaintiff has executed a registered release deed in favour of the second defendant and the plaintiff has not executed any release deed and under the said circumstances the signature as well as thumb impression found on the alleged release deed are not the signature as well as thumb impression of the plaintiff and in order to disprove the defence taken on the side of the first defendant, an application in Interlocutory Application No.29 of 2009 has been filed so as to appoint a Handwriting Expert for the purpose https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 mentioned therein and accordingly the same has been allowed, but the Handwriting Expert who has been appointed in Interlocutory Application No.29 of 2009 has compared only the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures and he has not done any work with regard to direction of comparing the disputed thumb impression with the admitted thumb impression and under the said circumstances the present petition has been filed for getting appointment of a Handwriting Expert afresh and the Court below has erroneously dismissed the same and therefore the order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. 5.It is seen from the records that in Original Suit No.200 of 2005 a Handwriting Expert has been appointed and he has been supplied with the relevant documents through an Advocate Commissioner and he filed his report In Interlocutory Application No.29 of 2009, it has been specifically prayed to collate the disputed signature as well as thumb impression with the admitted signature as well as thumb impression of the petitioner/plaintiff The main grievance expressed on the side of the revision petitioner is that the Handwriting Expert who has been appointed earlier failed to compare the disputed thumb impression with the admitted thumb impression of the petitioner/plaintiff. Under the said circumstances, the revision petitioner can very well take suitable steps so as to utilise the service of the Handwriting Expert, who has been appointed earlier. Instead of taking proper steps, the revision petitioner has erroneously filed Interlocutory Application No.818 of 2010 for identical reliefs. Since in Interlocutory Application No.29 of 2009 already a Handwriting Expert has been appointed and he has been supplied with the relevant documents through an Advocate Commissioner, the present petition is totally unwarranted and if at all the revision petitioner is having grouse, he can take proper steps so as to utilise the service of the Handwriting Expert, who has been appointed earlier in Interlocutory Application No.29 of 2009. With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition can be disposed of and altogether the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.818 of 2010 by the Court below is perfectly correct and the same does not require any interference. 6.In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs at the stage of admission and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.818 of 2010 in Original Suit No.200 of 2005 by the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar is confirmed However the revision petitioner is at liberty to take proper steps so as to compare the disputed thumb impression with the admitted thumb impression of the revision petitioner on the basis of the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.29 of 2009. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To:The District Munsif, Virudhunagar. +1CC to Mr.N.Dilipkumar, Advocate. SR.No.35557. Smn CRP(PD)(MD)No.915 of 2011 And MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 RP/31.10.2011/2P/3C. 13.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/