Madras High Court
Rajendran vs Annasamy Pandian on 1 December, 2016
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.12.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
C.R.P.(MD) (PD)No.1391 of 2016
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.6750 of 2016
1.Rajendran
2.Rajathi : Petitioners
Vs.
1.Annasamy Pandian
2.Karthikayini Nachiyar : Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order passed by the
District Munsif, Muthukulathu in I.A.No.228 of 2016 in O.S.No.89 of 2004
dated 08.06.2016.
!For Petitioners : Mr.K.Kumarael
^For Respondents : Mr.K.Kovindaajan for 2
No Appearance for R1
:ORDER
The civil revision petition arises against the fair and decretal order passed by the District Munsif, Muthukulathur in I.A.No.228 of 2016 in O.S.No.89 of 2004 dated 08.06.2016.
2.I have reserved this matter on 14.11.2016 and the matter was posted today i.e. on 01.12.2012 for clarification. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the 2nd respondent and perused the materials available on record and I passed the order in the open Court itself.
3.According to the petitioners, the revision petitioners have filed a suit in O.S.No.89 of 2004 before the learned District Munsif, Muthukulathur for permanent injunction against the respondents herein. In the said suit, the respondents/defendants have filed their written statement and the case is posted for trial. At that stage, the petitioners have filed a petition in I.A.No.228 of 2016, under Order 16 Rule 1(3) of C.P.C., to examine three persons viz., Maheswari, Sakthivel and Dhasarathan, to give evidence in respect of the signature of the second respondent. The respondents filed their counter. After hearing both sides, the Court below, allowed the application in part permitting the petitioners to examine one Dhasarathan alone and dismissed the application in respect of examination of Maheswai and Sakthivel, Aggrieved against the said order, the present civil revision has been filed.
4.According to the petitioners, the suit property belongs to the fist respondent herein and he has executed a power of attorney to one V.T.Thangaraja on 09.09.1999 and the same was registered in Sub Registrar?s Office in Document No.526 of 1999. In that document, the second respondent herein put her signature as one of the witnesses and one Dhasarathan also put his signature. Also, the first respondent herein has executed a general power to one Maheswari on 12.03.1999 and the same was registered in Document No.149 of 1999. In that document also, the second respondent herein put her signature as one of the witnesses and one Sakthivel put his signature. In both the documents, the second respondent put her signature in English language. The said signature has been disputed by the defendants. Therefore, in order to prove the signature, the petitioners have filed the instant application to examine the said Dhasarathan, Maheswari and Sakthivel. However, the trial Court has allowed the petitioner to examine the said Dhasarathan alone and in respect of the examination of Maheswari and Sakthivel, the application was dismissed. Hence, he prayed for the allowing of the revision.
5.Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that there is no necessary to examine the said Maheswari and Sakthivel in the suit in O.S.No.89 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Muthukulathur. The documents relied on by the petitioners are power of attorney deeds executed by the second respondent/second defendant and they were marked as Ex.A1 and A23 respectively. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the document Ex.A1 dated 09.09.1999 is related to present suit property. However, the document in Ex.A23 dated 12.03.1999 is not relating to the present suit property. In Ex.A1, the said Dhasarathan is a witness to the said document. Therefore, the Court below, after considering all the aspect, has rightly allowed to examine the witness of Dhasarathan and rejected the prayer in respect of examination of witnesses Maheswari and Sakthivel and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the revision petition.
6.Admittedly, the suit has been filed for permanent injunction. The second respondent herein/second defendant has executed two power deeds and the same were registered in Documents Nos.526 and 149 of 1999 respectively. In those documents, the second respondent has put her signature as one of the witnesses. Out of two documents, in one document, Dhasarathan put his signature. Another document was executed in favour of Maheswari, in which, Sakthivel also has put his signature. According to the petitioners, since the defendants disputed the signature, the petitioners have to prove the signatures shown in the documents and hence, the witnesses in the said documents are necessary to prove the case of the petitioners to show that the second respondent/second defendant has put her signature in both the documents as one of the witnesses. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has strongly objected that comparison of the signature can be made through an expert, if necessary, by filing appropriate application before the Court below subject to the objection and hence, the present revision cannot be entertained at the belated stage. The revision petitioners cannot take advantage and seek the relief as stated above.
7.Perusal of the records would show that Ex.A1, where, the said Dhasarathan is a witness to the document, is relating to the subject matter of the suit property. However, Ex.A23, which was executed by the second respondent/second defendant to the said Maheswari and the Sakthivel, who is the witness to the document, is not relating to schedule suit property. Therefore, the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced and the trial Court has rightly partly allowed and rejected the relief to examine the witness of Mahenswari and Sakthivel in the suit.
8.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the civil revision is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To The District Munsif, Muthukulathur..
.