Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Uppuluri Saritha Devi vs Peddapalle Sreenivasa Reddy on 27 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
:: AMARAVATI
APHC010310482022 (Special Original Jurisdiction)
The linked image cannot be display ed. The
file may hav e been mov ed, renamed, or
[3311]
deleted. V erify that the link points to the
correct file and location.
TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF
FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1189 OF 2022
Between:
Uppuluri Saritha Devi ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Peddapalle Sreenivasa Reddy ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(s) : SRI. K MANIK PRABHU
Counsel for the Respondents : SRI J JANAKIRAMI REDDY
The Court made the following:
2
BSB, J
C.R.P.No.1189 of 2022
ORDER:
This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 30.03.2021, dismissing I.A.No.298 of 2020 in O.S.No.4 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Allagada, Kurnool District, filed by the defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 151 CPC to send the suit promissory note, dated 11.11.2016, to an expert of the Government Forensic Lab, Vijayawada, for comparison of the disputed signature with her signature which will be taken in the public Court and to furnish an opinion.
2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the principal sum of Rs.12,20,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the suit promissory note till the date of realization. The suit was opposed by the defendant by filing written statement contending that the suit promissory note was created by forging the signatures of the defendant and further that the defendant is the sister of the plaintiff and that the defendant along with her sister, Sunita Devi, filed suit in O.S.No.129 of 2012 against the plaintiff and their father for partition of the family property on the file of the same Court and the suit is pending and that the plaintiff threatened the defendant and her sister to withdraw the said suit, but as the same was not heeded, the suit promissory note, dated 11.11.2016, was created. Pending the suit, the defendant filed I.A.No.298 of 2020 to send the suit promissory note to the Government Forensic Laboratory, Vijayawada, for the above said purpose. The petition was opposed by filing 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1189 of 2022 counter of the respondent/plaintiff contending that the suit claim is genuine and further that the Court itself can compare the signature of the defendant in the suit promissory note with the signature on the written statement and vakalat and thus, there is no necessity to send the document to an expert and filing of the petition is only to drag on the matter.
3. After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that the experts are insisting to produce the contemporaneous signatures for the purpose of comparison of the disputed signatures and that in the present case, the suit promissory note is of the year 2016, whereas the petitioner/ defendant filed a document which is a municipal approved plan containing the signature of the defendant which pertains to the year 2010, and thus, both the signatures are separated by six (6) years period, and therefore, the signature on the approved plan is not fit for comparison. The request to send the signatures of the defendant on his vakalat and the written statement was also rejected opining that they were made subsequent to filing of the suit and there is every possibility of affixing the signature in a different style not to match with the signature on the promissory note. It is of further opinion that the signatures of the petitioner/defendant taken (in open Court) for the purpose of comparison would not serve as standard signatures for comparison with signatures made in the year 2016 or 2015. The trial Court held that no purpose would be served by allowing the petition.
4. Aggrieved by the above order, this revision petition is preferred. 4
BSB, J C.R.P.No.1189 of 2022
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, appearing through video conferencing, submitted that the trial Court erred in ignoring the fact that the respondent/plaintiff himself admitted in the counter that the Court can compare the disputed signatures with the signature of the defendant on the written statement and vakalat, but the trial Court dismissed the petition with the above said observation. He further submitted that the signature of the defendant on the approved plan is also an admitted signature, and therefore, it is apt to allow the petition. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad (for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh) in Ravaluru Venkata Subbamma Vs Ravaluru Somasekhar 1 at para 5 which reads as follows:
"5. Another observation made by the trial Court is that, the Court can itself undertake comparison of the disputed signatures in exercise of its power under Section 73 of the Act. What is in dispute in the present context is not the signature upon the will; it is the age of the stamp paper on which Ex. B. 1 was written. It is only the security press that can certify the period of printing of the stamp papers. Viewed from any angle, the order passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law."
6. With regard to the finding that signatures taken in Court would not serve any purpose, he referred to the decision of this High Court in Chenga Chinna Reddaiah Vs. Shaik Khalander2.
1 2009 (5) ALT 549 2 2009 (3) ALT 653 5 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1189 of 2022
7. The Full Bench of this High Court in Bande Shivasankara Srinivas Prasad Vs Ravi Surya Prakash Babu and others3 held that the Court is 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, and that the Court, however, must 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. It is further held that 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.
8. In view of the above decision, the observation of the trial Court to reject the petition stating that there is time gap of about five years between the admitted document of approved plan and the suit promissory note cannot be appreciated. The trial Court ought to have left it open to the expert to express the opinion about the fitness of the signature for comparison. Moreover, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the counter itself it is mentioned that Court can compare the disputed signature with the signature on the approved plan and so both can be used for comparison as well.
3 AIR 2016 Hyderabad 118 6 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1189 of 2022
9. As can be seen from the decision of this High Court in Chenga Chinna Reddaiah (supra), lack of contemporaneous signatures may not be a ground to decline the relief and if necessary, signatures obtained in the open Court may also be sent to an expert and thereupon the expert can express opinion about their evidence for comparison. As such, in the present petition, the disputed signature on the suit promissory note can be sent to the expert to compare it with the signature of the defendant on the approved plan and also signatures obtained in open Court, besides the signatures on vakalat and written statement. Ultimately, Court can decide by examining the accuracy of the opinion of an expert and take its own decision with the assistance of the opinion of the expert, if found to be acceptable. Since the petitioner filed the petition at a belated stage, the petition can be allowed, subject to certain terms to compensate the inconvenience caused to the plaintiff.
10. As such, the petition is allowed and the order, dated 30.03.2021 in I.A.No.298 of 2020 in O.S.No.4 of 2018 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, is set aside and the I.A. is allowed on the condition that the petitioner shall pay the respondent/plaintiff Rs.5,000 (rupees five thousand only) towards costs within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the petition stands dismissed without any further reference to this Court. The trial Court is directed to follow the above said directions to send the disputed signature on the suit promissory note to an expert in the Government Forensic Lab in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The trial Court may further indicate to the expert to 7 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1189 of 2022 expeditiously send report in view of the pendency of the matters since 2018.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J Dt.27-02-2024 RAR/PNV