MIR KHAIRUDHIN Vs. K SOMI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.73 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Medchal. He allegedly obtained three Tamarind trees situated in premises bearing Nos.15 to 19, Block 9, for a period of four years on 01.02.2006. He alleged that when he was plucking the tamarind, there was interference from the defendants (respondents herein). Therefore, he filed the suit, being O.S.No.73 of 2006. In his interlocutory application, being I.A.No.255 of 2006, the learned trial Judge passed an order of ad interim injunction on 13.02.2006. The defendants entered appearance and filed their counters. After hearing the arguments, the orders in I.A.No.255 of 2006 were reserved on 06.03.2006. At that stage, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.527 of 2006 under Sections 45 and 72 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short 'the Act'), read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). He prayed to reopen the application, being I.A.No.255 of 2006, for the purpose of sending the two documents, which were filed in O.S.No.162 of 1994 and to send those two documents to the handwriting expert namely the Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. The application was opposed, and after hearing both the parties, the learned trial Judge dismissed the application on 27.03.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's lessor, Prakash, purchased the property from Harban Prasad through his General Power of Attorney holder, B.Krishna, that as the respondents are disputing the signature of B.Krishna, it would be in the interests of justice to summon the two documents, which were signed by B.Krishna. Learned Counsel would urge that such power inheres in the trial Court and the non-exercise of the same has resulted in the error apparent on the face of the record. These submissions are refuted by the learned Counsel for the respondents.

(3.) While dismissing the application, being I.A.No.527 of 2006, the learned Junior Civil Judge, observed as under.