Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
CRP/892/2022 on 11 August, 2022
Author: Battu Devanand
Bench: Battu Devanand
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.892 of 2022
O R D E R:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 21.04.2022 in I.A.No.108 of 2022 in O.S.No.158 of 2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram.
02. Heard Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Ghanta Sridhar, learned counsel for the Respondent and perused the material available on record.
03. The Petitioner is the Defendant and the respondent is the Plaintiff in O.S.No.158 of 2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram.
04. For convenience, the parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the trial Court.
Facts:
05. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from him and executed a suit promissory note in his favour after receipt of cash consideration in the presence of the attestors and scribe. In spite of several requests made by the Plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to clear off the debt due under the promissory note, and as such, the plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice on 27.05.2016. The Defendant gave reply to the Notice issued by the 2 plaintiff denying the averments made in the Notice. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the above said suit against the defendant.
06. It is the further case of the plaintiff that initially the defendant filed a petition to send the suit Promissory Note-Ex.A.1 to the handwriting expert for comparison of his signature in the Ex.A.1 with the admitted signatures and the same was allowed. After careful examination, the Expert opined that the signature on the Ex.A.1 is tallying with the admitted signatures. Thereafter, with an intent to drag on the matter, the defendant field I.A.No.108 of 2022 to examine the age of ink used for fill up the blanks in printed promissory note and also the age of the inks relating to his signature on Ex.A.1 to find out the age of the used inks on Ex.A.1 with the age of paper of Ex.A.1. But, the trial Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the petition observing that already expert opinion is received by this Court in I.A.No.2034 of 2017, in which the defendant's signature proved on Ex.A.1 Promissory note. As such, the present Civil Revision is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed.
Contention of the petitioner:-
07. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that the trial Court failed to give reasons, much less valid reasons for dismissing the application. From the beginning, the petitioner is contending that he never borrowed any amount from the respondent and never executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and the suit promissory note is a 3 rank forgery, and as such, the intention of the petitioner to send the document for determination of age of the ink and age of the paper is genuine and necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. The trial Court ought to have seen that the opinion of the handwriting expert cannot be looked into to decide the issue in the matter and the same can be used as a corroborative to the material evidence on record. He further submits that with the advancement of Science and Technology, the determination of the age of ink with accuracy is now possible and if it is scientifically established that there is a reasonable gap between the age of two inks, certainly that finding will help the petitioner to establish his defense. Therefore, he prays to allow the present Civil Revision Petition.
08. In support of the contentions of the petitioner, he relied upon the following judgments, which were relied on before the trial Court:
i) G.V. Rami Reddy v D. Mohan Raju1.
ii) Pendyala Chakrarao v Somu Rayudu2
09. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that even if the difference in the age is ascertained by the said organization, that alone cannot be a ground to believe the defence version of the petitioner because as observed in G.V.Rami Reddy's case, there was every possibility for the defendant to use old ink at the time of signing on the promissory note so as to suit his defence that he was going to plead and since such determination is not a determinative factor to hold the 1 2019 (4) ALT 400 (SB) 2 2020 Law Suit (AP) 31 4 contention of the defendant, there is no point in referring the Ex.A.1 to Neutron Activation Analysis, BARC, Mumbai.
10. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears, while taking into consideration the facts and circumstances in the above referred judgments, the trial Court passed an order while observing that already expert opinion is received in I.A.No.2034 of 2017, in which the expert opined that the signature on the Ex.A.1 Promissory Note is tallied with the admitted signatures of the defendant, and as such, there is no need to send again to the Expert for age of ink and paper used for Ex.A.1- Promissory Note.
11. This Court is not having any different opinion with respect to the proposition of law mentioned in the decisions relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, the facts and circumstances in the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the case on hand since the petition in I.A.No.2034 of 2017 filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, to send Ex.A.1-Promissory Note to the Handwriting Expert for comparison of his signature in the Ex.A.1 with the admitted signagures and the same was allowed and the expert gave his opinion. The Expert opined that the person, who wrote the signature upon the Ex.A.1 also wrote the admitted signatures.
5
12. Besides this, the petitioner already himself examined as DW.1 and the matter is at the stage of the arguments. It appears, at the belated stage, to drag on the suit proceedings, the petitioner filed the present application. Further, it is also observed that there is no such facility even to determine the age of ink and age of paper of Promissory note at the Andhra Pradesh State Forensic Science Laboratories, Amravati, Guntur District, as sought by the petitioner. Since the expert gave his opinion stating that the signature on Ex.A.1 is tallying with the admitted signatures, there is no necessity to send the same to the Expert for determination of the age of ink and age of paper of Promissory Note.
13. Therefore, this Court did not find any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.108 of 2022, dated 21.04.2022 and accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere into the Order passed by the trail Court by exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed.
14. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
15. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this case shall stand closed.
______________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Dt. 11.08.2022 eha 6 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.892 of 2022 Dt. 11-08-2022 eha