NOOKALA SRIDEVI Vs. KRISHNARJUNA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was the second defendant in OS No.228 of 1996 and was unsuccessful in IA No.642 of 2002, preferred this revision stating that the order of the Court below is a patent irregularity.

(2.) The brief facts are that the first respondent basing on an agreement of sale alleged to have been executed on 9-8-1986 filed the above suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale against the defendants therein. The suit is being contested by the defendants. During the course of trial, the plaintiff i.e. the first respondent herein came forward with a petition filed under Order XIII Rules 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC and Rule 128 of Civil Rules of Practice to call for the original vakalath and written statement of one late Nukala Jagannadha Reddy from the office record of A.S. No.1439 of 1999 on the file of this Court for comparison of the signatures thereon with the signatures on Ex.A.1 filed in the present suit.

(3.) According to the first respondent, the said Nukala Jagannadha Reddy is none other than the father of the petitioner herein and the second respondent executed the alleged agreement of sale on 9-8-1986 and as he is no more, his admitted signatures in the original vakalath and written statement from the record of A.S. No.1439 of 1999 are required. The said petition was opposed by the petitioner herein. But, however, the Court below held that the admitted signatures of the said N. Jagannadha Reddy can be sent to finger print expert to come to a just conclusion as to whether the signatures on the agreement of sale dated 9-8-1986 and the signatures on the original vakalath and written statement in A.S. No.1439 of 1999 are one and the same. As against the said order, the second defendant, as already stated, filed the present revision.