THEETLA VIJAYUDU Vs. GADDAM LAKSHMIDEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court ordered notice before admission and the learned counsel for the petitioner was also permitted to take out personal notices to the respondents and file proof of service. Though the respondents were served with notices none represents on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) Sri.G. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner, would submit that an application was filed under Order XXVI Rule 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') praying for sending the original sale deed dated 17-09-2004 executed by the petitioner and the alleged mortgage deed dated 3-12-1997 marked as Ex.B-1 to the A.P. Forensic Lab for comparison and for opinion of the expert.

(3.) It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner filed O.S.No.815 of 2000, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Cuddapah, which was instituted on the strength of a mortgage deed and an exparte decree was obtained. The revision petitioner moved a claim petition in the E.P praying for sending the sale deed and the mortgage deed referred to supra, to the Forensic Lab for the purpose of comparison to have the opinion of the expert for proper adjudication of the matters in controversy.