A single-judge bench consisting of honorable Justice Battu Devananda gave orders on the civil revision petition filed by the petitioner. The Petition is directed against the dismissal of an interlocutory application filed by the Petitioner, seeking to send the original documents mentioned in the Petition for the purpose of comparison of the Respondent’s signatures in the suit sale agreement.
Facts
In this case, the Petitioner filed the suit for the specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 12.08.2009 which was executed by the respondent in his favor. The Petitioner filed I.A. No. 147 of 2018 in O.S. No. 63 of 2013 under order 13 rule 10 and under order 16 rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure.
In the Petition, the Petitioner seeks the original documents mentioned in the Petition for the purpose of comparison of the Respondent’s signatures in the suit sale agreement. This Petition was dismissed by the Court and aggrieved by the same Petitioner filed the present Civil revision Petition.
Arguments
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent has intentionally taken the false pleas. The Respondent has filed the Writ Petitions before the Honorable High Court of Andhra Pradesh with her signatures in the affidavits different from that of the Petition. The learned Counsel contends that the Respondent does this occasionally as she has taken the plea of forgery in this suit and in the absence of original signatures, he is unable to send the sale agreement for comparison to an expert for an opinion.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Respondent is of ill-health and cannot travel often. Therefore, the Respondent has given an oral Power of Attorney to her husband to visit various offices and sign on her behalf on the respective documents. In accordance with this, the signatures in the affidavit filed in the Court are not that of the respondent. Those signatures are not admitted signatures and the orders given by the Court on the interlocutory application are appropriate.
Court’s Analysis
The case of the Petitioner is that the Respondent intentionally put her signatures in different styles in different documents at different points in time. The Petitioner is asking for original documents so that he can compare the signatures and prove his case on better lines.
The learned Counsel of the Petitioner and Respondents relied on the same judgments i.e., Pidikit Sasikala v. Kothamasu Lakshmi Mohan Rao@ Mohan Rao and others and Lakshmi and another v. Chinnammal Alias Rayammal and others. After reading the judgments it was found that the Respondent’s husband has signed the affidavit as per her consent and it amounts to oral power of attorney.
But in the eyes of law, there is no such power of attorney, it is a settled position in law that a power of attorney must be in writing only. Therefore, the signing of the affidavit filed along with Writ Petitions before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh amounts to perjury which is punishable. The contention of the Respondent is not maintainable and the original affidavit of the Respondent in Writ Petitions mentioned in the documents filed in I.A. no. of 147 of 2018 is not sustainable and not legal.
Court’s Order
The Court held that the orders passed before dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner is not in accordance with the law and liable to be set aside. The civil revision Petition is allowed and the orders, dated 15.11.2019 in I.A. NO. 147 of 2018 in O.S. No. 63 of 2013, is set aside. There is no cost allowed and any miscellaneous petitions pending shall stand closed.
Click here to read the judgment.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
