Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pentakota Janaki vs Bora Srinivasa Reddy on 9 January, 2025
1
(RNT,J
C.R.P.No.2957 of 2024)
APHC010523392024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3299]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2957/2024
Between:
Pentakota Janaki ...PETITIONER
AND
Bora Srinivasa Reddy ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P RAMJI
Counsel for the Respondent:
1.
The Court made the following:
ORDER :
Heard Sri P.Ramji, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1648 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.
2
(RNT,J C.R.P.No.2957 of 2024)
3. The suit has been filed against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of amount on the strength of promissory note, dated 21.03.2021 alleged to have been executed by the petitioner/defendant. The petitioner denied the execution of the promissory note. He filed I.A.No.494 of 2023 in O.S.No.1648 of 2022 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 (in short „the Act‟) to send Ex.A1-promissory note to the handwriting expert along with admitted signatures of the defendant to be taken in the open Court for comparison in the interest of justice.
4. I.A.No.494 of 2023 was allowed, by order, dated 29.11.2023 in the following terms :
"10. In the result, this petition is allowed without costs. Hereby directed the petitioner/defendant shall present and give specimen signatures in the open Court on bunch of two white papers in the presence of the both the counsels and also to cause produce her contemporaneous admitted genuine signatures for the year 2021-2022 within one week, if the petitioner/defendant will fail to appear and to produce his contemporaneous admitted signatures, the petition shall stands dismissed."
5. The petitioner opened in bank a new account and obtained her signatures on the opening form on 17.11.2022. He filed I.A.No.62 of 2024 in the suit and filed the account opening form application, dated 17.11.2022, to issue summons to the Branch Manager, Bandhan Bank, Pendurthi Branch, Visakhapatnam for 3 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.2957 of 2024) production of savings bank account opening form, so as to enable the petitioner to send the same to the handwriting expert for comparison.
6. The learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge dismissed the petition, by order, dated 12.08.2024.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application ought to have been allowed. The Court was not barred from sending the disputed signatures on the promissory note for comparison to an expert with the petitioner‟s admitted signatures on the application form, dated 17.11.2022. He submits that the time gap between the disputed signatures on the promissory note and the admitted signatures on the application form, dated 17.11.2022 is less than two years and consequently, it was desirable to allow the application, but the learned Court illegally dismissed the said application form.
8. The learned counsel placed reliance in the following cases :
1. P.Padmanabhaiah V. G.Srinivasa Rao1
2. Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad V. Ravi Surya Prakash and others2 1 (2017) 1 ALT 710 2 2016 (2) ALD 1 (FB) 4 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.2957 of 2024)
3. Pulipaka Rasgana V. Yarra Anuradha Naidu and others3
9. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record.
10. The learned Court observed that the bank account opening application/form was dated 17.11.2022. The promissory note date was 21.03.2021. The suit was filed in the year 2022. The summons were issued to the petitioner/defendant and they were served on 07.11.2022. The learned Court therefore observed that the bank opening form/application was after the date of the receipt of the summons. The petitioner, therefore, had the knowledge about the filing of the suit, basing on the promissory note, and had also received the copy of the suit promissory note. So, there was every possibility for the defendant to change his signatures, in the account opening form, dated 17.11.2022. The learned Court was of the view that the signatures, of the defendant/petitioner on account opening form, dated 17.11.2022 were not having assured standard for comparison, therefore dismissed the petition.
11. The learned Court, thus, was not satisfied that the petitioner‟s signatures on the bank opening form/application, were 3 C.R.P.No.2007 of 2019, decided on 31.03.2023 5 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.2957 of 2024) contemporaneous, admitted genuine signatures for being used for comparison with disputed signatures.
12. In P.Padmanabhaiah (supra), this Court, observed that the Court is not barred from sending the disputed signatures for comparison to an expert merely because the time gap between the admitted signatures and the disputed signatures is long and the Court must nonetheless endeavour to impress upon the petitioning party that comparison of disputed signatures, separated by a time lag of 2 to 3 years, would be desirable so as to facilitate expert comparison in accordance with satisfactory standards. This Courtfurther observed that the judicious discretion must be exercised depending upon the facts and circumstances of the individual case.
13. The relevant part in Para 7 in P.Padmanabhaiah (supra), reads as under :
"7. Before proceeding further it is trite to refer to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad v. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu and others wherein the legal position is settled. In this decision the reference was answered as under by the Full Bench.
"It is essentially within the judicious discretion of the Court, depending on the individual facts and circumstances of the case before it, to seek or not to seek expert opinion as to the comparison of the disputed handwriting/signature with the admitted 6 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.2957 of 2024) handwriting/ signature under Section 45of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court is however not barred from sending the disputed handwriting/ signature for comparison to an expert merely because the time gap between the admitted handwriting/signature and the disputed handwriting/signature is long. The Court must however endeavour to impress upon the petitioning party that comparison of disputed handwritings/signatures with admitted handwritings/signatures, separated by a time lag of 2 to 3 years, would be desirable so as to facilitate expert comparison in accordance with satisfactory standards. That being said, there can be no hard and fast rule about this aspect and it would ultimately be for the expert concerned to voice his conclusion as to whether the disputed handwriting/ signature and the admitted handwriting/signature are capable of comparison for a viable expert opinion. The view expressed by the Division Bench in Janachaitanya Housing Limited v. Divya Financiers [2008 (3) ALT 409 (DB)], as to the stage of the proceedings when an application can be moved by a party under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, continues to hold the field and there is no necessity for this Full Bench to address that issue."
As per the settled legal position, there is also no requirement of having documents with Court is however not barred from sending the disputed signatures for comparison to an expert merely because the time gap between the admitted signatures and the disputed signatures is long comparison by an expert and the and the Court must nonetheless endeavour to impress upon the petitioning party that comparison desirable so as to 7 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.2957 of 2024) facilitate expert comparison in accordance with satisfactory standards. Be that of disputed signatures with admitted signatures, separated by a time lag of 2 to 3 years, would be as it may. As already noted, the e judicious discretion must be exercised depending upon facts and circumstances of the individual case. Keeping in view the legal position, now it is to be examined as to whether the order passed by the Court below is sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand."
14. In Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad (supra), the full bench formulated the following issues :
"In the circumstances, the following issues are, in our view relevant to be considered before proceeding to answer the reference.
(a) Are contemporaneous handwritings/ signatures always or normally necessary for comparison and report;
(b) What is the meaning of "contemporaneous";
and what is the measure of contemporaneity;
(c) Why are Examiner of Questioned Documents frequently returning documents sent to them for opinion, to the referring Court for contemporaneous signatures/ handwritings? Is current handwriting science/expert protocols in the area incapable of comparing handwritings/ signatures without "contemporaneous" models for comparison; whether in all circumstances or only in specific situations; and if in specific situations, what are the range of circumstances where 8 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.2957 of 2024) contemporaneous handwritings/signatures required for rendering an opinion?"
and answered the reference in para 15 as under :-
"15. We accordingly answer the reference as under: It is essentially within the judicious discretion of the Court, depending on the individual facts and circumstances of the case before it, to seek or not to seek expert opinion as to the comparison of the disputed handwriting/signature with the admitted handwriting/signature under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court is however not barred from sending the disputed handwriting/signature for comparison to an expert merely because the time gap between the admitted handwriting/signature and the disputed handwriting/signature is long. The Court must however endeavour to impress upon the petitioning party that comparison of disputed handwritings/signatures with admitted handwritings/signatures, separated by a time lag of 2 to 3 years, would be e desirable so as to facilitate expert comparison in accordance with satisfactory standards. That being said, there can be hard and no fast rule about this aspect and it would ultimately be for the expert concerned to voice his conclusion as to whether the disputed handwriting/signature and the admitted handwriting/signature are capable of comparison for a viable expert opinion. The view expressed by the Division Bench in Janachaitanya Housing Limited v. Divya Financiers (supra), as to the stage of the proceedings when an application can be moved by a party under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, continues to hold the field and there is no necessity for this Full Bench to address that issue." 9
(RNT,J C.R.P.No.2957 of 2024)
15. In Pulipaka Rasgana, (supra) this Court, after considering the full bench judgment, also observed that there can be no hard and fast rule about sending signatures for comparison and it would ultimately be for the expert concerned to voice his conclusion as to whether the disputed handwriting/signature and the admitted handwriting/signature are capable of comparison for a viable expert opinion.
16. There is no dispute on the aforesaid proposition of law, which is well settled that the Court is not barred from sending the disputed handwriting/signatures for comparison to expert merely because the time gap between the admitted handwriting/signature and the disputed handwriting signature is long. The Court must however endeavour to impress upon the petitioning party that comparison of disputed handwritings /signatures with admitted handwritings/signatures, separated by a time lag of 2 to 3 years, would be desirable so as to facilitate expert comparison in accordance with satisfactory standards. Such a document can be sent for comparison, but it also depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case, under which the discretion is to be exercised by the learned Court judiciously.
10
(RNT,J C.R.P.No.2957 of 2024)
17. In the present case, the application has not been rejected on the ground that there was time gap of two years or more. But, the ground of rejection is that, the defendant/petitioner received the summons of the suit on 07.11.2022 along with the copy of the promissory note. He thereafter, applied to the bank for opening of the account on 17.11.2022. So, there was possibility of changing the signatures in such application form, which signature cannot be on the contemporaneous document nor an admitted signature inspiring confidence for the purpose of comparison with the disputed signatures. It is also well settled in law that the signatures of the defendant on the vakalat or written statement filed after receipt of the notices of the suit cannot be sent for comparison with the disputed signatures. The same reasoning and the ratio can be applied in the present case also with respect to the signatures on the saving bank account opening form for opening the account after the receipt of the summons of the suit and the copy of the promissory note.
18. The learned Court has rejected the application with respect to a document, which was created after receipt of the summons.
19. I do not find any illegality in the exercise of such discretion, on such consideration.
11
(RNT,J C.R.P.No.2957 of 2024)
20. The Civil Revision Petition lacks merits and is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date : 09.01.2025.
Note :- L.R. Copy to be marked.
B/o RPD.
12
(RNT,J C.R.P.No.2957 of 2024) 223 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI (DISMISSED) CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2957 OF 2024 Date : 09.01.2025 Note :- L.R. Copy to be marked.
B/o RPD.
13
(RNT,J C.R.P.No.2957 of 2024) *HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI + CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2957 OF 2024 % 09.01.2025 #1. Pentakota Janaki.
......Petitioner And:
$ 1. Bora Srinivasa Reddy.
....Respondent.
!Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P.Ramji ^Counsel for the respondent/(s) : ---.
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (2017) 1 ALT 710
2. 2016 (2) ALD 1 (FB)
3. C.R.P.No.2007 of 2019, decided on 31.03.2023 14 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.2957 of 2024) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2957 OF 2024
1. Pentakota Janaki.
......Petitioner And:
1. Bora Srinivasa Reddy..
....Respondent.
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 09.01.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be Allowed to see the judgments? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair Copy of the Judgment?
Yes/No ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J