Syed Ibrahim vs Ramani Ammal on 7 August, 2018

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Syed Ibrahim vs Ramani Ammal on 7 August, 2018

Bench: G.R.Swaminathan

        

 

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               
DATED: 07.08.2018  
CORAM   
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN              
C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.1274 of 2018  
and 
C.M.P.(MD) Nos.5365 and 6545 of 2018   

Syed Ibrahim                                      ... Petitioner

  Vs.


Ramani Ammal                                      ... Respondent     


PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set
aside the fair and decreetal order passed by the Hon'ble District Munsiff
Court, Muthukulathur in I.A.No.121 of 2018 in O.S.No.16 of 2017 dated
10.04.2018.

!For petitioner      : Mr.Lakshmi Gopinathan
                               for M/s. Polax Legal Solutions
^For Respondent              : Mr.K.R.Laxman


:ORDER

The respondent in this Civil Revision Petition is one Ramaniammal. She filed O.S.No.16 of 2017, against the revision petitioner, seeking the relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit, the revision petitioner took out I.A.No.121 of 2018 for referring the unregistered mortgage deed dated 10.04.2015, said to have been executed by the respondent, in favour of the revision petitioner, for opinion of handwriting expert. Such an application was taken out because during the examination of the plaintiff, she was confronted with the said documents and the plaintiff / respondent herein denied, having executed the same. Such a denial on the part of the plaintiff, necessitated filing of I.A.No.121 of 2018. The trial Court, however by the impugned order dated 10.04.2018, dismissed the said I.A. Assailing the same, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, who reiterated the grounds set out in the memo of grounds.

3. However, I am of the view that this Civil Revision Petition will have to be dismissed by accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the question of sending an unmarked document for expert opinion will not arise. It is admitted that the document in question was not yet marked. Therefore, the refusal of the trial Court to send the same for expert opinion is sustained for this reason. This Court holds that I.A.No.121 of 2018 in O.S.No.16 of 2017 was clearly not maintainable, as it was pre-mature and the document in question was not yet marked.

4. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

To:

1. District Munsiff, Muthukulathur.

2.The Record Keeper, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court