Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Nalnaru Shanmugam vs Nalnaru Narayanaiah on 8 November, 2012
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2012 AP 6
Author: C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
Bench: C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3328 of 2012
08-11-2012
Nalnaru Shanmugam
Nalnaru Narayanaiah
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. S. Lakshminarayana Reddy for Mr. R. Chandra Reddy
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. O. Uday Kumar
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
?CITATIONS:
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order, dated 05.07.2012, in I.A.No.685 of 2012 in O.S.No.503 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati.
The respondent filed the above-mentioned suit for recovery of money on the foot of a promissory note marked as Ex.A1. After the trial was completed and the suit was posted for arguments, the petitioner has come out with the above- mentioned I.A. under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, (for short 'the Act') read with Section 151 of CPC for sending the suit promissory note- Ex.A1 and also Ex.B1, a Medical Certificate, for comparison with his signatures available in Vakalath and written statement filed in the suit. This application was dismissed by the lower Court by the order under revision.
At the hearing, Mr. S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for Mr. R. Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the main ground on which the application was dismissed by the lower Court, namely, that the same is belated, cannot be sustained. He has also submitted that the lower Court has given conclusive findings even before the arguments were concluded and that the same cannot be sustained.
Mr. Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, advanced his submissions supporting the order of the lower Court.
Under Section 45 of the Act, opinion of an expert inter alia on handwriting constitutes relevant fact. Under Section 73 thereof, the Court is empowered to compare the signatures or writings on the disputed document with the admitted signatures or writings. Ordinarily, when there is a serious dispute regarding the signatures or writings, the Courts take the opinion of the Experts, which though does bind the Courts, the same will help the Courts to arrive at proper and correct conclusions. Therefore, normally, the Courts make a liberal approach in allowing the applications for obtaining Expert's opinion wherever there is serious dispute over the signatures or the handwritings or the thumb impressions.
In the instant case, at the earliest point of time, the petitioner has taken the plea that the suit promissory note is a forgery. From his affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.685 of 2012, it is evident that the petitioner has not stopped only at the said denial. He has gone to the further extent of stating in the written statement that he would take steps to send the suit promissory note to the Expert for comparison with his admitted signatures. Having said so, the petitioner kept quiet without filing such application till the trial was completed and the suit was posted for arguments. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, belatedness of the application for sending the disputed document to an Expert for comparison shall not constitute the sole reason for rejection of such application. However, the conduct of the parties is very much relevant in considering such applications, for, more often, the defendants come out with such applications at a belated stage with a view to drag on the suits as a desperate measure. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the application made at a belated stage is not bona fide and the same is intended to prolong the suit, delay in filing such an application would certainly constitute a relevant ground in dismissing the same. Undoubtedly, the case on hand is one such case where even though the petitioner has come out with his stand in unequivocal terms that the suit promissory note was a forgery and claimed that he is going to make an application for sending the same for Expert's opinion, for the reasons best known to him, he has not filed any such application till the entire evidence was closed and the suit was posted for arguments. On the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that the belated filing of the application by the petitioner is certainly a relevant ground, which disentitles him to claim the relief.
The lower Court has, however, embarked upon the merits of the plea of the petitioner relating to the genuineness or otherwise of Ex.A1, which it should have avoided till the hearing of the suit was completed. Therefore, while declining to interfere with the order under revision, it is directed that the observations made by the lower Court on the merits of the case shall not influence the decision making by it in the main suit.
With the above-mentioned observations, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, CRPMP.No.4397 of 2012 filed for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.
_______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 08.11.2012