ANAPALLI BHASKAR Vs. GUDI VENKATESWARLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.R.P. No. 6291 of 2012 was allowed by a learned Judge of this Court, since retired. The respondents in the CRP seek review of the said order. The petitioners in the C.R.P. are the defendants in O.S. No. 744 of 2007 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. The respondents in the CRP, the review petitioners, are the plaintiffs therein. This suit was instituted seeking cancellation of three sale deeds dated 13.08.1990 said to have been executed by late Anapalli Vandanam and late Rondla Ademma. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the legal heirs of Anapalli Vandanam and Rondla Ademma and that the defendants had forged their thumb impressions in the three sale deeds and got them registered.

(2.) After closure of their evidence, the plaintiffs filed LA. No. 718 of 2012 in the suit to reopen the case. This LA. was dismissed by the trial Court and C.R.P. No. 4911 of 2012 was filed before this Court assailing the same. By order dated 01.10.2012, this Court held that a reasonable opportunity should be granted to the plaintiffs to let in their whole evidence and the trial Court was directed to accord them an opportunity to do so.

(3.) Thereupon, having got two bank documents marked in evidence as Exs. A.11 and 12 through the bank manager concerned, the plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 1184 of 2012 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1872') read with Section 151 C.P.C. to send the disputed sale deeds for expert opinion as to the thumb impressions therein in comparison with those affixed by Anapalli Vandanam and Rondla Ademma in the bank documents, Exs. A.11 and 12. By order dated 03.12.2012, the trial Court allowed the LA and directed the documents to be forwarded to the finger print expert for obtaining an opinion. This order was called in question in the present C.R.P. No. 6291 of 2012 by the defendants.