Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
M.A. Sulthan Mohiuddin vs Mohammad Suleman Babu And Anr. on 9 June, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(5)ALD827, 2006(4)ALT634
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
ORDER L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The petitioner is the 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 680 of 1998 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada. The 1ST respondent filed the suit against the 2nd respondent and the petitioner for recovery of certain amount on the strength of a promissory note. The petitioner denied his signature on Ex.A-1 and pleaded that it was forged. He filed I.A. No. 48 of 2006 Under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send the promissory note marked as Ex.A-1 for the opinion of handwriting expert, for comparison with admitted signatures. The application was opposed by the 1ST respondent and through its order, dated 6-2-2006, the trial court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.
2. Sri P.R. Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the reasons assigned by the trial court, while dismissing I.A., are untenable. He contends that the petitioner raised the plea of forgery in the written statement itself and there was no justification for the trial court in taking the view that the petitioner ought to have raised the objection in reply to the suit notice. He further contends that the denial by the petitioner of his signature on the vakalat and on the acknowledgement was on account of confusion. learned Counsel points out that when there is a serious dispute as to the genuineness of the signature on the promissory note, an expert opinion would go, a long way in resolving the controversy.
3. The suit filed by the 1ST respondent was initially decreed ex-parte. However, the ex-parte decree was set aside in the year 2004 on condition that the petitioner shall deposit the entire suit amount. After the suit was restored, the trial court has taken up the trial of the matter. The petitioner filed I.A. Under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for sending the promissory note for examining the genuineness of the signature on it. One of the reasons assigned by the trial court in not acceding to the request of the petitioner is that he did not take the plea of forgery in his reply to the notice issued by the first respondent. Once it has emerged that the petitioner has raised the plea in the written statement, the mere fact that such a plea did not find place in the reply notice cannot be treated as a ground for rejecting the application.
4. In the ordinary course of things, there must not have been any difficulty in acceding to the request for sending the promissory note for an expert's opinion. However, one of the pre-requisites for undertaking such an exercise is the existence of undisputed signatures. Normally, when an application is filed Under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, the signature of that party on his vakalat or in the deposition, if any, are treated as the admitted ones and the disputed document is sent for opinion of the expert for comparison with the admitted signatures. In the instant case, the petitioner has gone to the extent of denying his signature on his vakalat as well as acknowledgment, which was marked as Ex. A-4. When such is the uncertainty as to the existence of an admitted signature, the difficulty in undertaking an exercise Under Section 45 of the Evidence Act can easily be imagined.
5. With the denial of his signature by the petitioner on the vakalat and Ex. A-4, the court has to search for some other admitted signatures, Contemporaneousness of such signatures would pose another problem of its own. The net result is that the trial of the suit would be protracted beyond any reasonable limit of time. The trial court was impressed by these developments and dismissed the I.A. Therefore, this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the same.
6. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.