Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Shaik Allabaksh vs V Gurava Reddy on 9 February, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2716 of 2023
ORDER:
The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.265 of 2015 in the Court of the Learned V Additional District Judge, Tirupati for recovery of money on the basis of promissory notes which have been marked as Exhibits A-1 & A-2.
2. The stand of the petitioner is that these promissory notes are forgeries and fabricated by the respondent. The petitioner also took the stand that the fabrications and material alterations in the promissory notes would non-suit the respondent and in any event the difference in ink and the age of the hand writing would also support the case of the petitioner.
3. To demonstrate his case, the petitioner moved I.A.No.350 of 2023 in O.S.No.265 of 2015 for the following relief:
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to send the promissory notes marked as Exhibit A-1 & A-2 in the above suit to the Hand writing expert to examine and opine on the material alterations of the numerical digits of Rs.12,00,000/- in Exhibit A-1; and the material alterations of the numerical digits of Rs.10,00,000/- in Exhibit A-2; and to compare the signatures of the Petitioner/Defendant with his admitted signatures and also the differences in Ink and Script of the recitals of Exhibit A-1 & A-2 promissory notes to arrive at a just and proper conclusion of the subject matter in order to advance the cause of justice in adjudicating the suit and pass such orders and such any other orders in the circumstances of the case in the interests of justice and equity.
4. The Trial Court, by an order dated 29.09.2023 had dismissed the said application on the ground that the petitioner had only sought comparison of the disputed signatures on Exhibits A-1 & A-2 with his admitted signatures and such comparison was not possible as there were no admitted signatures of the petitioner available.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has moved the present Civil Revision Petition.
6. Sri Srinivasulu Kurra, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Trial Court, while dismissing the petition, had recorded that the questions of material alterations, difference in age of ink and the question of age of the hand writing in the promissory notes were not pleaded in the application when such averments were clearly available in the affidavit filed in support of the application.
7. Heard Sri B. Venkatesh Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of VMR Legal for the respondents.
8. The finding of the Trial Court that the petitioner had not raised the issues of difference in the ink used, material alterations etc., appears to be erroneous view.
9. The question of sending the pro-notes for examination for determining the age of the ink is no more res integra. A learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of G.V. Rami Reddy Vs. D. Mohan Raju1 had taken the view that such a comparison is permissible and possible and had directed that the BARC, Mumbai would be requested to conduct Nutron Activation Analysis for determining the age of the signature of the defendant in the said case.
10. However, subsequent Judgments of various Hon'ble High Courts had taken the view that such an analysis is not technically possible. A Learned Single Judge of this Court, after reviewing the said Judgments, in C.R.P.No.1195 of 2022 had held that the said evaluation of the age of the ink is not possible. I am in respectful 1 2019 (2) ALT 253 agreement with the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge in C.R.P.No.1195 of 2022.
11. As far as the question of alteration of the numerals and difference in the ink used is concerned, the same can always be examined and compared by the Trial Court and it is only in the event of the Trial Court being unable to make out any such alteration or change in ink etc., and in the event of the Learned Trial Judge require further assistance in the matter, it would be necessary for referring these questions to an appropriate expert.
12. In these circumstances, this Civil Revision Petition is closed with the aforesaid observations. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
09.02.2024 MJA/BSM 138 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2716 of 2023 09.02.2024 MJA/BSM