MAHESHWARI MEGA VENTURES LTD Vs. RAAVI VENKATESHWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Court while admitting the civil revision petition on 28. 12. 2007 granted interim stay for a limited period which was subsequently extended for a further limited period and on 2. 5. 2008 after making an elaborate order, the learned Judge extended the same until further orders and directed the civil revision petition to appear in the list on the reopening day after summer vacation.

(2.) THE civil revision petition is filed by the Revision Petitioner/plaintiff being aggrieved of the Docket Order dated 28. 11. 2007 made in I. A. No. 796/2007 in O. S. No. 535/2006 on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The said order was made by the learned Judge closing the said application recording certain reasons. It is pertinent to note that the learned Judge by order dated 20. 8. 2007 allowed the LA. for obtaining the opinion of the handwriting expert by sending the same to Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad to examine the admitted subsequent signatures and to file the opinion. The learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by order dated 28. 11. 2007 recorded:

(3.) SRI M. Chandra Sekhar Rao, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner would maintain that it may be that the Apex Court might have given a direction to dispose of the suit early. That does not mean the original Court can make illegal or unsustainable orders in undue haste. The learned Counsel also would maintain that it is not as though this application to send the document to the expert to compare with the admitted signatures had been moved by the Revision Petitioner. The said application was moved by the respondents and an order was invited. The learned Counsel also would point out that virtually this is a consent order for the reason that no counter- affidavit had been filed by the revision petitioner opposing the application and when an order had been made and when the document to be sent to an expert for the purpose of comparing the signatures with the other admitted signatures and to file opinion, whether it is an order made suo motu by the Court or on hearing the Counsel representing the opposing parties when a right had accrued to the party i. e. , sending the document to be examined by an expert and obtaining an expert opinion, that too on the consent of both the parties, such order cannot be recalled or modified without putting the petitioner on notice and without giving opportunity and without hearing the revision petitioner. The learned Counsel also would maintain that this is a clerical or arithmetical mistake and in view of Section 152 or 151 of the Civil Code of Procedure, the same can be brought in aid of such an order and hence the same is unsustainable. The Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to certain illustrations appended to Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 and also further pointed out that as far as the investigation of the criminal case and under what circumstances the said opinion had been obtained the same being not within the knowledge of the revision petitioner that cannot be introduced as a ground while making such a suo motu order. Hence, the learned Counsel would maintain that when even by virtue of an interlocutory order, a right had accrued to a party, that too by a consent order, the same cannot be taken away by the Court without putting the adverse party also on notice. Hence, viewed from any angle, the order cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions.