Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Chintalapudi Sambasiva Rao vs Nuthalapati Venkateswarlu, on 11 January, 2024
Author: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
Civil Revision Petition No.1147 of 2022
Order:
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order,
dated 05.05.2022 passed in IA No.338 of 2022 in OS No.270 of 2019
by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.
2. The petitioner herein is the defendant, and respondent herein
is the plaintiff, in OS No.270 of 2019, which was filed for recovery of amount due under the suit promissory note. After examination of PWs. 1 to 4 in the said suit, the petitioner herein/defendant filed IA No.338 of 2022, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of CPC, to send the original suit promissory note to the handwriting expert for comparison with his specimen signature and other material available on record and to examine the same in all dimensions i.e., over writings, variation of inks and age etc.
3. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.338 of 2022, that the plaintiff is the maternal uncle of one Madamanchi Hanumantha Rao, who husband of sister of defendant. The said Hanumantha Rao is a litigant person and he created litigation and got filed O.S.No.375 of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Juge, Narasaraopet, alleging that one Koteswaramma (mother of defendant) already borrowed Rs.7,00,000/- from his sister Madamanchi Sambrajyam and his mother could not repay the amount 2 and executed agreement of sale of property towards the discharge of the alleged debt, and did not execute the registered sale deed. The defendant's mother contested O.S.No.375 of 2016 contending that the alleged agreement of sale is forged one and referred the same for experts opinion to the forensic lab. The experts opined that his mother's finger print on alleged agreement is rank forgery. In view of the aforesaid facts, the defendant believes that the plaintiff who is his maternal uncle to the Madamanchi Hanumantha Rao at the instance of his brother-in-law fabricated and created the suit promissory note, dated 06.08.2016, by forging his signature. He neither borrowed Rs.3,25,000/- from the plaintiff nor executed the suit promissory note dated 06.08.2016 at any point of time. Hence, he requests to send the suit promissory note to Government hand writing expert to examine the same note in all dimensions.
4. A counter affidavit came to be filed stating that the petitioner/defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,25,000/- and executed suit promissory note in the presence of scribe and attestors, who are third parties and no way related to the plaintiff and there is no necessity for them to give false evidence. There are no material alterations in the Ex.A1 promissory note, but ink variations are there in the said promissory note. The evidence of PWs.2 to 4 goes to show that they signed with their own pens and on the other hand, the petitioner/defendant has not filed any piece of material prior to the 3 date of the suit document. Accordingly, he prayed the Court to dismiss the said I.A.
5. Heard both sides.
6. On a perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, dismissed the I.A. on the ground that the petitioner/defendant did not produce any documents with his signature of authentic and reliable nature, more or less contemporaneous period of Ex.A1 promissory note, hence the expert will not be in a position to furnish an assured opinion. It was further held that even though the petitioner/defendant prayed to compare the signature on Ex.A1 with that of his specimen signature, he did not file any specimen signature before the Court. So, there is no possibility to compare the signature on Ex.A1 promissory note with that of the specimen signature of petitioner/defendant.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the relevant period, documents containing contemporaneous signature were not available with the petitioner and hence he could not produce the same before the Court. He submits that the said documents are available with the petitioner as of now and he is intending to produce the same before the Court.
8. In view of the aforesaid submission made by the petitioner herein, I am of the opinion that an opportunity can be given to the petitioner/defendant. Accordingly, the petitioner herein/defendant is 4 directed to file fresh application before the trial Court along with documents containing contemporaneous signatures if any available, containing his signatures within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On filing such application and documents by the petitioner herein/defendant, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet is directed to dispose of the same, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (2) weeks therefrom. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet is further directed to compare the disputed signature of the petitioner with that of his specimen signatures as per Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872.
9. With the said observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.
____________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J Date:11.01.2024 Vnb 5 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1147 of 2022 Date:11.01.2024 Vnb