Telangana High Court
Sadam Ashok Reddy vs Sadam Venkat Reddy on 3 October, 2018
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
Civil Revision Petition No.4725 of 2018
ORDER:
The petitioner/defendant challenges the order dated 24.07.2018 in I.A.No.238 of 2017 in O.S.No.121 of 2013 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, dismissing the petition filed under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act,1872 (for short "the Act") praying the Court to send the suit original promissory note to the Government Security Press, Nasik in Maharashtra State for the purpose of giving opinion on the revenue stamps affixed on the pronote including the date, month and year of their printing and release.
2a) The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit on the strength of pronote dated 05.07.2010 allegedly executed by the petitioner/defendant on borrowing Rs.2,50,000/- from him. The petitioner/defendant contested the suit mainly on the ground that he never executed the suit pronote dated 05.07.2010 and it is a rank forgery. He took a specific plea in the written statement that the plaintiff developed malicious intention against him and created a false document with the help of his supporters. The revenue stamps affixed on the promissory note were not belonging to the year 2010 i.e. the year of the alleged pronote. At the time of filing suit, the plaintiff with the help of his supporters affixed the recent revenue stamps and crossed them. The defendant has not obtained amount from the plaintiff and not affixed any revenue stamps and crossed.
2
b) Be that it may, at the trial stage, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.238 of 2017 under Section 45 of the Act praying the Court to send the original promissory note to the Government Security Press, Nasik in Maharashtra State for giving opinion on the revenue stamps affixed on the promissory note with regard to the date, month and year of the issuance of their printing and release.
c) The respondent/plaintiff opposed the petition. d) The trial Court observed that the alleged signature of the
petitioner/defendant is appearing in the box of the printed promissory note and his so-called signature was not made across the revenue stamps affixed on the pronote. Hence, mere drawing of blue lines on the revenue stamps affixed on Ex.A1--pronote do not amount to cancellation of adhesive stamp by the executant as provided under Section 12(3) of the Act and the petitioner/defendant who was challenging the genuineness of Ex.A1 document, could have taken advantage of the said fact. However, instead of said plea, petitioner/defendant sought for forwarding the suit pronote to Security Printing Press, Nasik to ascertain the date, month and year of the printing and release of revenue stamps affixed on Ex.A1 to prove his contention that the revenue stamps do not belong to the year 2010 and they were subsequently affixed. The trial Court further observed the said contention is quite unsustainable, for, even if he succeeds in proving the revenue stamps affixed on Ex.A1 do not belong to the year 2010, his plea of forgery cannot be accepted because even if no revenue stamps are 3 affixed on pronote, it can be duly impounded by collecting the requisite stamp duty and penalty as provided under Clause (a) of proviso to Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 which was amended w.e.f. 18.04.2006 and hence, ascertaining the date, month and year of printing and release of revenue stamps affixed on Ex.A1 do not in any way help the petitioner/defendant except causing delay. On the said observation the trial Court dismissed the petition.
Hence, the instant CRP.
3) Heard arguments of Sri J.Ashvini Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri L.Preetham Reddy, learned counsel for respondent.
4) Severely fulminating the order of the trial Court, learned counsel for petitioner/defendant would submit that referring the suit pronote to the Government Security Press, Nasik for ascertaining the year of the printing and release of revenue stamps would certainly establish the petitioner's contention that stamps were not affixed on the alleged date of pronote i.e. 05.07.2010 and they were affixed sometime after the alleged date of pronote. Elucidating his contention, learned counsel would submit, it is the specific case of the petitioner that he has not executed the suit pronote on 05.07.2010 and at the time of filing of the suit in the year 2013, the said two revenue stamps were affixed on it. That being the case of the petitioner/defendant, if the defendant could able to establish the revenue stamps were not of the year 2010 but of the subsequent year, that would establish that the stamps could not have been affixed on the date of pronote 4 and that would also further establish the pronote itself was not executed on 05.07.2010. In other words, he would contend the suit pronote can be established to be a rank forgery. He would submit that with this contention the petitioner/defendant sought for referring Ex.A1--pronote to the Security Printing Press, Nasik for ascertaining the year of the printing and release of the stamps affixed on Ex.A1. However, the trial Court though referred the plea of the defendant that suit pronote is a rank forgery and revenue stamps that were affixed on it were not belonging to the year 2010, however, answered this contention only in the context of amendment to Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act which came into force w.e.f. 18.04.2006 which is not his contention at all. Therefore, he would argue, the trial Court erred in answering the forgery contention of the suit pronote in the context of Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act. He thus prayed to allow the CRP.
5) Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff by supporting the impugned order would submit that referring the suit pronote to the Security Printing Press, Nasik would not serve any purpose. As rightly observed by the trial Court, it would only cause further delay, as the suit is of the year 2013. Learned counsel would further argue the petitioner/defendant has not taken a specific plea that stamps were of a particular year as he has not produced any record to that effect and therefore, the trial Court rightly turned down his request in such circumstances. To buttress his contention, 5 he relied upon the judgment of this Court in Ganga Prasad Sharma vs. D.Markandeyulu1.
6) On a close scrutiny of the respective pleadings in the plaint and written statement and also in I.A.No.238 of 2017, this Court finds force in the submission of learned counsel for petitioner/defendant. It is the contention of the defendant in the written statement that he never obtained loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff and he has not executed the suit pronote dated 05.07.2010 and the so-called promissory note was created by the plaintiff. It is also his contention that revenue stamps affixed on the said promissory note are not belonging to the year 2010 and at the time of filing of suit the plaintiff with the help of his supporters, affixed the recent revenue stamps and crossed them and in fact, the defendant has not borrowed the amount from the plaintiff and he has not affixed and crossed. That being his specific plea, to establish the same, he filed I.A.No.238 of 2017 to refer the suit promissory note to Security Printing Press, Nasik for ascertaining the year of printing and release of the revenue stamps that are affixed on Ex.A1--pronote. According to him, this exercise will help decide his contention in right perspective. He would submit, if the petitioner/defendant succeeds in establishing that the two revenue stamps that were affixed on Ex.A1 are of the year subsequent to the suit promissory note dated 05.07.2010, consequently it will establish the suit promissory note was not executed on 05.07.2010, because the plea of the plaintiff is that on the very same date of execution of suit promissory note 1 2011 (2) ALD 475 6 the revenue stamps were affixed on it. In short, if it established that the revenue stamps belonged to the year subsequent to pronote, the said fact nullify the plaintiff's plea that execution of pronote and affixture of revenue stamps were contemporaneous events.
7a) I have gone through the impugned order. The trial Court unfortunately has not appreciated this contention in a proper perspective. As rightly contended, the trial Court appreciated his contention with reference to Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act, which, it must be said, is not the plea of the petitioner/defendant. Therefore, the order of the trial Court needs to be set aside.
b) The contention of the respondent/plaintiff does not hold water. In the written statement as well as in I.A.No.238 of 2017 the petitioner/defendant has taken a specific plea that the two revenue stamps affixed on Ex.A1-- pronote were not of the year 2010 but were affixed subsequently before filing the suit. Therefore, there is no truth in contending that there is no specific plea. The cited decision was rendered on different footing. In that case, it appears, the defendant though took a plea of forgery of promissory note, did not take specific plea. Therefore, this Court opined that mere making a statement in written statement about forgery of alleged pronote will not help unless the other particulars are mentioned. However, it must be said, in the instant case there is a specific plea that revenue stamps affixed on the suit pronote do not belong to the year 2010. Hence, the cited 7 decision will not help the contention of learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff.
8) In the result, this CRP is allowed setting aside the order in I.A.No.238 of 2017 and consequently the trial Court is directed to refer Ex.A1--suit pronote dated 05.07.2010 to the Government Security Press, Nasik in Maharashtra State for the purpose of giving opinion as to the date, month and year of the printing and release of the revenue stamps affixed on suit pronote. On receiving the said opinion, the trial Court shall dispose of the suit expeditiously. No costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J Date: 03.10.2018 Murthy