BALAJI Vs. D.RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 30.7.2019 passed by the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in I. A. No. 3 of 2019 in O. S. No. 12175 of 2010 refusing to forward the disputed signature of the deceased found in the sale agreement for comparison with that of the admitted signature found in the passport issued to the deceased Udayakumar.

(2.) The respondents 1 and 2 herein filed a suit for specific performance of contract of sale agreement based on a sale agreement dated 17.8.2005 said to have been executed by the petitioner's deceased father - D. Udayakumar. The petitioner, who is the 3rd defendant in the suit has filed writ statement along with his mother disputing the very execution of the sale agreement by his father, as during the relevant point of time, he had been suffering from cancer and taking treatment from June 2005 to till his demise on 23. 12. 2005 and there was no occasion for him to execute any sale agreement as alleged by the respondents 1 and 2. That apart, his father had purchased the property in question only in the month of April 2005 and, therefore, he would not have offered to sell the same immediately after the purchase and enter into an agreement of sale. According to the petitioner, the sale agreement in question could have been created by the respondents 1 and 2 in order to grab the valuable immovable property. In order to substantiate his defence, he filed an application praying to forward the disputed signature found in the alleged sale agreement for comparison by a hand writing expert with that of the admitted signature of the deceased found in his passport which was issued in the year 2005.

(3.) The learned trial Judge has dismissed the application thereby refusing to forward the disputed signature for comparison and opinion by a hand writing expert on the ground that the suit was originally filed in the year 2006 and the same was subsequently decreed ex parte on many occasions due to the non appearance of the petitioner, finally, it was restored in the year 2014 and the present application for expert opinion came to be filed nearly 12 years after the institution of the suit only for the purpose of dragging on the suit. It is this order which is now under challenge in this writ petition.