K KESAVA REDDY Vs. K DEEPALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Civil Revision Petitions are against the orders of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur dated 17-8-2001 dismissing I.A.Nos. 1701 and 1700 of 2001 in O.S.No. 409 of 1995.

(2.) The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 409 of 1995. He filed the said suit against his father (3rd respondent- defendant, who is no more), brothers and sisters, who are the respondents-defendants, for declaration that the gift deed executed by his mother on 25-11-1991 in favour of the 1st respondent-defendant, who is a daughter of one of his brothers, is a forged one. The trial of the suit was commenced on 25-2-1999 and was completed on 19-12-2000 and since then the suit is being posted for arguments. However, the arguments could not be completed due to the non-co-operative attitude adopted by the petitioner-plaintiff and the respondents-defendants 7 to 10, who were supporting the petitioner- plaintiff. During the course of trial, the petitioner-plaintiff filed I.A.No. 1730 of 2000 to send the disputed gift deed dated 25-11-1991 to the Finger Print Expert along with thumb impression register Ex. X-l, which was summoned from the Sub- Registrar and Ex. X-3 sale deed dated 14-3-1984 for comparison. It appears that the said application was dismissed on 2-8-2000 on the ground that the particulars of the impugned gift deed were not correctly stated. More than one year thereafter, at the stage of arguments in the suit, on 6-8-2001, the petitioner-plaintiff filed application in IA.No. 1701 of 2001 again seeking the same relief i.e., sending the gift deed dated 25-11-1991 to a Finger Print Expert for comparison and also filed an application in I.A.No. 1700 of 2001 seeking to reopen the suit. The application in I.A.No. 1701 of 2001 filed for sending the disputed gift deed to the Finger Print Expert was dismissed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge on the ground that there are no bona fides in the petition and the same was filed only to protract the litigation. Consequently, I.A. No. 1700 of 2001, which was filed for reopening the suit, was also dismissed.

(3.) Relying upon a decision of this Court in Medikonda Rama Swarajyalakshmi v. Posina Satyanarayana and another, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that a petition filed for sending a disputed document to a Handwriting Expert cannot be dismissed on the ground that the application is belated and, therefore, the orders under revision cannot be sustained.