Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Korapala Padmavathi vs P.Chinna Bramaiah on 15 March, 2024
APHC010357962023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3311]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1984/2023
Between:
Korapala Padmavathi ...PETITIONER
AND
P Chinna Bramaiah ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. GUTTAPALEM VIJAYA KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent:
None
The Court made the following:
2
BSB, J
C.R.P.No.1984 of 2023
ORDER:
This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed against the order, dated 10.07.2023, dismissing the petition in I.A.No.239 of 2021 in O.S.No.133 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, filed by the defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to send the signature on the disputed suit promissory note/exhibit A1, dated 25.07.2014, along with the admitted signature of the defendant on her written statement and affidavit in chief-examination and depositions in the cross-examination to the Government Handwriting expert to determine the genuineness of the signature on exhibit A1.
2. The respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,50,794/- based on the promissory note, dated 25.07.2014, for principal amount of Rs.4,70,000/- allegedly executed by the defendant. The defendant filed written statement denying signature on the suit promissory note pleading that it is rank forged one. The respondent/ plaintiff opposed the petition by filing counter and denying the averments in the petition and stating that the petitioner did not file relevant document containing the signature of the defendant pertaining to the year 2014 and that the petition is infructuous as the petitioner had already admitted in cross-examination that there are no previous money transactions in between herself and the plaintiff except the suit 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1984 of 2023 transaction, and therefore, there is a clear admission of the suit transaction in the evidence and thus, there is no need to send the promissory note to the handwriting expert. Accepting the stand taken by the respondent/plaintiff, the trial Court dismissed the petition.
3. Aggrieved thereby, this revision petition is filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defendant used to sign as 'K.Padmavathamma', whereas the suit promissory note contains signature as 'K.Padmavathi', and therefore, it is clear that the suit promissory note has been fabricated by forgery. In support of his contention, he submitted that the petitioner has in her possession acknowledgment of application for Aadhar card and also PAN card containing the signature of 'K.Padmavathamma'. However, no document containing her original signature pertaining to the period 2014 or some period near thereto is shown to this Court. Since there is possibility of signing in disguise, the vakalat, written statement etc which come into existence subsequent to the suit, they may not provide specimen signature for comparison by an expert. Moreover, though the defendant has taken the plea of forgery of the promissory note, no steps have been taken to send the disputed document to an expert till the year 2021, whereas the suit was filed in the year 2016. Therefore, there is no merit in filing the petition.
4
BSB, J C.R.P.No.1984 of 2023
5. However, the observations of the trial Court about the admission of the defendant in her cross-examination is not called for in the impugned order. As such, such an observation needs to be set aside. However, since there is no suitable specimen signature available for comparison by an expert, there is no merit in the petition.
6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, confirming the result of the petition in I.A.No.239 of 2021 in O.S.No.133 of 2016, however, expunging the observation of the trial Court in the order regarding the admission of the defendant in her cross-examination.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J RAR