JUDGEMENT
D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J. -
(1.)These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed to set aside the fair order and decretal orders dated 26.10.2016 passed in I.A.Nos.35 and 36 of 2016 in O.S.No.43 of 2010 on the file of the learned District Judge, Thiruvannamalai.
(2.)According to the petitioner/defendant, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.43 of 2010 against the petitioner for specific performance. At the stage of arguments, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.35 of 2016 under section 151 CPC to re-open the suit and filed another application in I.A.No.36 of 2016 under Section 75(e) r/w Order 26 Rule 9A and 151 of CPC to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. The Court below dismissed I.A.No.35 of 2016, by order dated 26.10.2016, on the ground that the said I.A. has been filed belatedly at the stage of arguments and also dismissed I.A.No.36 of 2016 in view of the dismissal order passed in I.A.No.35 of 2016.
(3.)The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent filed the suit for specific performance based on the sale agreement dated 03.07.2009, Ex.A.1 and the petitioner has to prove that the signature found in the said sale agreement Ex.A.1. is not genuine and the same is fabricated. Hence, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.35 of 2016 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and to send the alleged sale agreement dated 03.07.2009 to scientific investigation along with comparison of specimen signature found in vakalat and I.A.No.36 of 2016. The Court below, without considering the facts of the case, erroneously dismissed both the applications. The learned counsel further submitted that, if those applications have been allowed, no prejudice would have been caused to the respondent and therefore, the impugned orders passed by the Court below are liable to be set aside.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.