Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Manda Srinivasa Rao vs Undavalli Satyavathi on 4 July, 2022
Author: Battu Devanand
Bench: Battu Devanand
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.940 of 2022
O R D E R:
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order, dated 10.03.2022 in I.A.No.403 of 2021 in O.S.No.23 of 2016 on the file of the VIII Additional District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru, whereby the learned VIII Additional District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru, dismissed the petition filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.
2) Heard Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and Sri A.V.V.S.N. Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff and perused the material available on record.
3) The Petitioner herein is the Defendant and the Respondent herein is the Plaintiff in O.S.No.23 of 2016 on the file of the VIII Additional District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru.
4) The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.23 of 2016 before the VIII Additional District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,88,334/- with subsequent interest @ Rs.2/- per month per hundred from the date of 2 plaint till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.11,00,000/- under the promissory note, dated 09.01.2013.
5) The petitioner/defendant filed written statement denying the debt and specifically stating that the signature on the promissory note was absolutely not his signature.
6) In order to prove that the signature on the suit promissory note is not of the petitioner, he filed a petition in I.A.No.739 of 2019 in O.S.No.23 of 2016 under Section 45 of Evidence Act, seeking to send the suit promissory note, dated 09.01.2013 to the Government Hand Writing Expert at FSL, Vijayawada along with admitted signatures for comparison and to file report for better adjudication of dispute. The said application was allowed by order, dated 07.01.2020 directing to send Ex.A.1 promissory note, dated 09.01.2013 to handwriting expert, A.P.F.S.L. for comparison with admitted signature of the petitioner for opinion and report. The Director, A.P.F.S.L., Mangalagiri sent a report, dated 13.02.2020 requesting to retransmit along with extensive admitted Telugu signatures of the petitioner around the period 2013 for the purpose of comparison.
7) The petitioner filed another application in I.A.No.403 of 2021 in O.S.No.23 of 2016 with a prayer to send the 3 signatures of the petitioner obtained in the open Court and the suit promissory note to C.F.S.L., Amberpet, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad or Truth Labs Forensic Sciences, 402, Aporva Towers, Road No.2, Behind Kotak Mahindra Bank, Hyderabad, for comparison. The said application was dismissed by order, dated 10.03.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
8) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below grievously erred in holding that there is no use to send contemporary English signatures of the petitioner to the expert with a request to compare with the questioned signature which is in Telugu. The learned counsel contends that the Court below failed to consider the specific plea of the petitioner that he never put his signature in Telugu vernacular at any point of time and it is not possible to file the documents sought by the expert in the earlier round. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner ought to have provided opportunity to prove that the signature on the Ex.A.1 is forged by allowing the petition.
9) This Court seriously considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and order, dated 10.03.2022 in I.A.No.403 of 2021 in O.S.No.23 of 2016 passed by the trial 4 Court. It is an admitted fact that the trial Court had earlier sent the suit promissory note and the document which contained standard signature of the petitioner to the F.S.L., Amaravati. But, the F.S.L., Amaravati returned the documents requiring contemporary signatures of the petitioner in Telugu. The trial Court opined that when an expert asked for contemporary signatures, it is the duty of the petitioner at whose instance the documents were sent to the F.S.L. to file such documents which contained contemporary signatures. The trial Court further opined that when such a plea was taken, it is rather not possible to send any document to expert as much as of the past and present documents submitted by the petitioner contained his signatures in English and whereas the expert could not compare the standard signature obtained by the Court and the questioned signature over the suit promissory note. Accordingly, the trial Court came to a conclusion that there is no use to send contemporary English signatures of the petitioner to the expert with a request to compare with the questioned signature which is in Telugu.
10) The trial Court observed that since the petitioner who had taken a plea that the signature over the promissory note is not that of his signature, it is forged and fabricated one, the 5 burden is on the petitioner to establish the same and when the petitioner failed to file the documents as required by the F.S.L., Amaravati, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought in the present petition to send the documents to another expert at Hyderabad.
11) On careful perusal of the order passed by the trial Court, this Court is not having any difference opinion than the trial Court expressed with regard to sending the documents to another expert at Hyderabad as and when the petitioner failed to file the documents required by the expert (i.e.) F.S.L., Amaravati, this Court did not find any reasons to interfere into the order passed by the trial Court.
12) Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
13) There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.
______________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Dt.04.07.2022.
Note: Issue CC tomorrow.
B/o PGR 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND C.R.P.No.940 of 2022 Dt.04.07.2022 PGR