Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
P Dinakar Kumar vs Marri Ramadevi on 13 December, 2019
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3681 and 3683 OF 2019 COMMON ORDER:
These revisions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 25.11.2019 passed in I.A.Nos.640 and 639 of 2019 in O.S.No.202 of 2015 respectively by the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi, whereby the petitions filed under Section 151 and under Order XVIII Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short "C.P.C.") to reopen the suit and to send the disputed suit promissory note Ex.A.1 to the Government Hand Writing Expert were dismissed by the trial Court by Common Order.
The petitions filed by the petitioner before the trial Court under Section 151 and under Order XVIII Rule 17 of C.P.C. were dismissed on the ground that the petitioner raised a specific plea in his written statement that the suit document is forged one and to substantiate his contention, he filed the present petitions to refer the promissory note to the Government Hand Writing Expert for his opinion. While deciding the petitions, the trial Court made serious observations on merits of the main suit with reference to the plea of forgery in paragraph No.3 of the order under challenge before this Court.
During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner drawn the attention of this Court to the unwarranted observations/findings recorded by the trial Court in paragraph No.3 of the order under challenge before this Court.
MSM,J crps_3681 and 3683_2019 2 As seen from the order under challenge, the trial Court arrived at and recorded a conclusion, which is seriously affecting the plea of the petitioner in the main suit based on plea of forgery.
"Upon consideration of submissions made by both sides, it is clear that the main suit is coming up for adducing arguments. The written statement filed by petitioner/defendant contains specific plea of forgery and the attention of respondent/plaintiff was also invited at the time of trial proceedings by the petitioner/defendant. The effort made by petitioner/defendant in the form of subjecting respondent/plaintiff as well as the first attestor examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 did not succeed to prove his contention. On the other hand, the respondent/plaintiff also invited the attention of petitioner/defendant on the said plea of forgery and successfully elicited an answer in support of his contention that Ex.A.1 Promissory Note was executed by petitioner/defendant himself."
These findings, if allowed to remain on record, they will have their own impact on the disposal of the main suit since the Presiding Officer is predetermined while passing the impugned order to reject the plea of forgery.
Considering the same, such findings recorded by the trial Court transgressing the power conferred on it while deciding the petition filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with 151 of C.P.C. filed for reopening of evidence and to recall witnesses or even in a petition filed under Order XXVI Rule 10A of C.P.C. for referring the disputed signatures along with admitted signatures to the expert for opinion.
Therefore, the findings recorded in paragraph No.3 of the impugned order are pre-matured, hence the findings recorded in paragraph No.3 of the impugned order are set aside while MSM,J crps_3681 and 3683_2019 3 directing the trial Court to dispose of the main suit uninfluenced by the findings recorded in paragraph No.3 of the common order passed in I.A.Nos.639 and 640 of 2019 in O.S.No.202 of 2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi.
With the above, the civil revision petitions are disposed of. No costs.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 13.12.2019 Ksp