Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Yarramsetty Venkata Narasimha Rao vs Matra Rajendra Prasad on 11 July, 2022
Author: Battu Devanand
Bench: Battu Devanand
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1240 of 2022
O R D E R:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 26.04.2022 in I.A.No.373 of 2022 in O.S.No.2 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.
02. Heard Sri Puspha Leela, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the material available on record.
03. The Petitioner is the Defendant and the respondent is the Plaintiff in O.S.No.02 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.
04. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent filed O.S.No.2 of 2019 with false allegations against him by filing the columns in Ex.A.1- Promissory Note, dated 15.02.2017. He did not execute the suit promissory note in favour of the respondent. The petitioner joined in the chit run by the brother of Savani Kasaiah namely Savani Venkateswarlu and at the time of chit transaction, the said Savani Venkateswarlu obtained a blank promissory note from the petitioner and the chit transaction was completed about 3 years ago. Later, in view of the land dispute in respect of the property between the Savani Kasaiah and the petitioner, the said Kasaiah and Venkateswarlu colluded together and 2 taking advantage of the possession of the blank promissory note, got filed the said suit through the respondent. Therefore, it is just and necessary to send Ex.A.1-Promissory Note to the handwriting expert to ascertain the age of link for the signatures of the petitioner on the said Promissory Note.
05. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below erred in dismissing the petition for sending the suit promissory note for expert opinion without giving cogent reasons. The Court below failed to consider that the respondent filled the blanks in the suit promissory note, which was handed over to the friend of the respondent, and due to that reason, it is just and necessary to send Ex.A.1 Promissory Note to the Expert to ascertain the age of the ink used by the respondent. As there is a plea taken by the petitioner in the Written Statement that the respondent filled the blanks on the signed promissory note, the Court below ought to have allowed the petition for determining the age of ink used by the respondent in the promissory note. From the beginning, the petitioner is contending that he never borrowed any amount from the respondent and never executed any promissory note in favour of the respondent and the suit promissory note is a rank forgery, and as such, the intention of the petitioner to send the document for determining the age of ink used on the promissory note is genuine and necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. He further submits that with the advancement of Science and Technology, the determination of the age of ink with accuracy is now possible and if it is scientifically established that 3 there is a reasonable gap between the age of two inks, certainly that finding will help the petitioner to establish his defense. Therefore, he prays to allow the present Civil Revision Petition.
06. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that the petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from him and executed a suit promissory note in his favour, after receipt of cash consideration in the presence of the attestors and scribe. In spite of several requests made by the Respondent, the petitioner did not choose to clear off the debt due under the promissory note, and as such, the respondent got issued a registered legal notice on 02.11.2018, but in spite of the notice, the petitioner did not choose to repay the debt due to him. Therefore, the Respondent filed the above said suit against the petitioner.
07. It is the further case of the respondent/plaintiff that thereafter the Petitioner filed I.A.No.373 of 2022 in O.S.No.2 of 2019 to send the suit Promissory Note-Ex.A.1 to the handwriting expert to ascertain the age of link used for the signatures of the petitioner on the said promissory note. The trial Court, after hearing both the counsel, and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case in a proper perspective, dismissed the petition filed by the Petitioner. As such, the present Civil Revision is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed.
08. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the expert opinion is a opinion of the expert, but not a conclusive proof. Even the expert opinion is differs, it may not override the evidence of the 4 witnesses. He further submits that even if the difference in the age is ascertained by the said organization, that alone cannot be a ground to believe the defence version of the petitioner because as observed in G.V. Rami Reddy v D. Mohan Raju1 case, there was every possibility for the petitioner to use old ink at the time of signing on the promissory note so as to suit his defence that he was going to plead and since such determination is not a determinative factor to hold the contention of the petitioner, there is no point in referring the Ex.A.1 to Neutron Activation Analysis, BARC, Mumbai.
09. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears, the respondent filed a suit against the petitioner for a recovery of Rs.5,07,500/- basing on a promissory note dated 15.02.2017 said to be executed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed Written Statement contending that he has close relationship and acquaintance with one Savani Kasaiah, who is the brother of Savani Venkateswarlu, who is running chits, and the petitioner was a member of the chit ran by the said Savani Venkateswarlu and at the time of the transaction, Venkateswarlu obtained a blank signed promissory note from the petitioner and the said transaction was completed about 3 years ago and as there was a dispute in respect of the property between the Kasaiah and the petitioner, the said Kasaiah and Venkateswarlu collude together and got filed the said suit through the plaintiff.
1 2019 (4) ALT 400 (SB) 5
10. The trial Court observed that if really the petitioner had joined as a member of chit allegedly run by Savani Venkateswarlu, who is the brother of Savani Kasaiah, definitely he would have mentioned the year of joining in the said chit. He also did not mention how much amount of chit he had joined as a member, how many members were in the said chit and when he stood as prized subscriber of the chit. In the absence of above details of the chit, it is not believable that the petitioner was a member of the chit run by the Venkateswarlu, who is the brother of S. Kasaiah with whom allegedly the petitioner is having land disputes. If really, the petitioner is a member of a chit run by S. Venkateswarlu and it was completed three years ago, what prevented the petitioner to issue legal notice to the said S. Venkateswarlu, demanding him to return the blank signed promissory note, which was allegedly given in a chit transaction. Therefore, there is no evidence on behalf of the petitioner to prove that he was a member of a chit run by Savani Venkateswarlu and he issued a signed blank promissory note to the said Venkateswarlu in the chit transaction. As such, in our considered view, the trial Court rightly observed that the contention of the petitioner on this aspect is not believable.
11. On behalf of the respondent, Pws. 1 to 3 were examined. During cross examination, the petitioner/defendant suggested to Pws. 1 to 3 that about 10 years ago, the petitioner gave a singed blank promissory note to Savani Venkateswarlu in a chit transaction between Venkateswarlu and the petitioner, they all at one breath denied the said 6 suggestion. The trial Court observed in its order that the said promissory note is not a old paper as stated by the petitioner. It is also observed that on perusal of Ex.A.1 Promissory Note, the Scribe, who is examined as PW.3, wrote the date as 15.02.2018 beneath his signature. Therefore, the trial Court rightly observed that in the light of the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3, even the Ex.A.1 Promissory Note send to expert, no purpose would be served as expert evidence is only opinion evidence.
12. Coming to the aspect of whether the science relating to forensic examination of handwriting especially in relation to the age of the ink is concerned, the trial Court, by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, rightly held that when the attestor and the scribe of Ex.A.1 Promissory note are categorically deposing about borrowing of the amount by the petitioner under Ex.A.1 Promissory Note on 15.02.2017 and execution of the Promissory Note in favour of the respondent, the positive evidence of Pws. 1 to 3 cannot override the evidence of expert even though the report of the expert is in favour of the petitioner in respect of age of ink used on Ex.A.1-Promissory Note. As any reference of a document to the handwriting expert just for the purpose of finding out whether the link was five years old or three years old at the time of the institution of the suit is not likely to any fruitful result, the trial Court rightly held that there is no need to send Ex.A.1 Promissory note to the Forensic Science Department to ascertain the age 7 of ink used for the signatures of the petitioner on Ex.A.1 Promissory note.
13. Therefore, this Court do not find any irregularity or infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.373 of 2022, dated 26.04.2022, and accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere into the Order passed by the trail Court. Therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.
14. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
15. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this case shall stand closed.
______________________
JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
Dt. 11.07.2022
eha
8
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1240 of 2022
Dt. 11-07-2022
eha