Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Vajjala Sree Rama Murthy And Anr. vs Tadepalli Narayana Murthy on 25 April, 2006
Equivalent citations: AIR2006AP315, 2006(3)ALT621, AIR 2006 ANDHRA PRADESH 315, 2007 (1) AJHAR (NOC) 11 (AP), 2006 (5) AKAR (NOC) 708 (AP), 2006 A I H C (NOC) 343 (AP), (2006) 5 ANDHLD 167
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
ORDER L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. These two revisions are filed by the same petitioners assailing the orders passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda rejecting the applications filed under Sections 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.
2. The respondent filed O.S. Nos. 49 and 50 of 2002 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda against the petitioners, for recovery of amounts on the basis of certain promissory notes. The trial of the suit commenced and the recording of evidence is said to have been completed. At that stage, the petitioners filed I.A. Nos. 40 and 41 of 2006 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act with a prayer to send the document to the Forgery Detection Cell, Indian Security Press, Nasik inviting an opinion as to the date and year of manufacture or printing of the stamps on the promissory notes. The applications were opposed by the respondent. The trial Court dismissed the said applications through separate orders dated 10-3-2006. Hence, these revisions.
3. Sri P.R. Prasad, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that though his client admitted the signatures of the promissory notes, the took a specific plea that the signatures were obtained by coercion in the year 2002 and the same can be proved, in case the date of manufacture and release of the stamps affixed on the promissory notes is ascertained. He submits that the dismissal of the applications, cannot be sustained in law.
4. Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, the learned Counsel for the respondent, on the otherhand, submits that the petitioner made similar effort by filing I.A. Nos. 168 and 170 of 2003 in the respective suits, and even after rejection of the said applications by the trial Court as well as by this Court, the present applications are filed with the object of delaying the disposal of the suits.
5. The suits are filed on the strength of seven promissory notes of different dates covering different amounts. According to the respondent, the promissory notes were executed on 02-11-2000, 4-11-2000, 30-12-2000 and 3-4-2001. The petitioners, however, pleaded that the promissory notes were obtained from them by coercion on 30-4-2002. During the course of trial, the petitioners filed I.A. No. 168 and 170 of 2003 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for sending the documents for opinion of the expert. The applications were rejected by the trial Court and the order of rejection was affirmed by this Court in revisions.
6. The present I.As., are filed with a prayer to send the documents to the Security Press, so that an opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act can be rendered as regards the date of manufacture of the revenue stamps affixed on the promissory notes. Even assuming that such a course has become imperative in the instant case, there exists a serious impediment in acceding to the request of the petitioners. As observed earlier, applications under Section 45 of the Evidence Act were filed by the petitioners for sending the very promissory notes for opinion of the expert. An exercise, to be undertaken under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, vis-a-vis, a document, must be comprehensive and total. A party cannot be permitted to split the purposes in the context of examination through an expert under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. In other words, if several parts of the documents are to be subjected to expert opinion, the relief must be claimed in relation to all. Different applications cannot be permitted to be made in relation to each and every facet of the document. In a way, it can be said that such a course is prohibited under Order II CPC, insofar as, it governs the course of applications also.
7. In I.A. Nos. 168 and 170 of 2003, the petitioner were expected to include the relief, which was prayed for in the instant applications also. If the matter is examined from the broad principles of constructive res judicata, the instant applications become barred, in view of the dismissal of the I.A. Nos. 168 and 170 of 2003.
8. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the orders under revision. The revisions are dismissed.