Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Korvi Rosaiah vs Mitta Srinivasa Reddy on 23 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(3)ALD211, 2006(3)ALT605
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
ORDER L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. These two revisions are filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 27 of 2003 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge at Nakrekal.
2. The respondent filed the suit for recovery of certain amount, on the basis of a promissory note against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a written statement denying the very execution of the promissory note. Therefore, the respondent filed LA. No. 169 of 2004 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send the vakalat signed by the petitioner and the promissory note for comparison, by an expert. A report has been received to the effect that the signatures on the vakalat and the promissory note are different from each other.
3. The respondent filed LA. No. 285 of 2004 with a prayer to send the loan application of the petitioner made to the Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society, Nomula, so that it can be sent to an expert along with the disputed promissory note, for opinion. The LA. was allowed and the loan application of the petitioner was called for. Thereafter, the respondent filed LA. No. 355 of 2004 to send the loan application and the promissory note for comparison to an expert. This application was also allowed. These two revisions are filed against the orders passed in LA. Nos. 285 and 355 of 2004.
4. Sri K. V. Subba Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that filing of successive applications for the same relief, particularly under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, is impermissible in law. He placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in R. Bhaskar Reddy v. Chinni @ Chengal Reddy .
5. Sri K. Jagan Mohan Reddy, the learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner had deliberately signed in a different fashion in the vakalat and that necessitated the present exercise. He further submits that no interference is called for with the orders under revision.
6. In an exercise under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, the signature of a party on a disputed document is to be compared with the one, on an undisputed document. The vakalat or the depositions of the parties concerned are treated as the basis and the signatures thereon are compared with those on the disputed document. If the signature is in the form of a thumb impression, no difficulty, as such, would arise. Where, however, the signatures are in writing, there is every likelihood of there being variation, either on account of deliberate attempt by the party concerned or due to change of writing with the passage of time.
7. The signature of the petitioner on the vakalat was fpund to be at variance with the one on the promissory note. The respondent suspected that the petitioner has deliberately changed the pattern of his signature on the vakalat. It was in this context that he wanted the signature of the petitioner on a loan application form, which has nothing to do with the suit transaction, to be compared with the one on the promissory note. Such a course would result in a valid and genuine exercise, under Section 45 of the Act. No prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner.
8. In the decision R. Bhaskar Reddy v. Chinni @ Chengal Reddy (supra), this Court held that a party cannot seek opinion from another expert, if the earlier was not favourable to him. In that case, a second opinion was sought with reference to the same set of signatures i.e., the admitted and disputed ones. In the instant case, it is not so. The respondent entertained a doubt as to the genuinity of the very signature on the promissory note.
9. Therefore, no exception can be taken for the orders under revisions. It is, however, made clear that the trial Court shall not undertake a repeated exercise in respect of the same set of documents.
10. Hence, the civil revision petitions are dismissed.