Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kolli Chandra Sekhara Reddy vs Alla Gangi Reddy, on 21 June, 2024
Author: K.Suresh Reddy
Bench: K.Suresh Reddy
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3320 OF 2023
ORDER:
Challenging the order dated 12-12-2023 in I.A.No. 428 of 2023 in O.S.No. 13 of 2022 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal (for short, 'the trial Court'), the petitioner-defendant filed the present revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, before this Court.
2. The respondent-plaintiff filed the aforementioned suit against the petitioner-defendant for recovery of money of Rs.38,65,666/- on the foot of five promissory notes. The petitioner-defendant filed written statement inter alia contending that suit promissory notes are fabricated and that he never borrowed any amount from the respondent-plaintiff under the above suit promissory notes. Pending the suit, the petitioner- defendant filed I.A.No. 428 of 2023 under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act praying the trial Court to send suit promissory notes to handwriting expert for opinion. The trial Court dismissed the above interlocutory application by the order under challenge.
3. Heard Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-defendant, and Sri P.Ganga Rami Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff. 2
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant would contend that in the written statement, the petitioner-defendant raised a specific plea of forgery of suit promissory notes and to prove the same, the present interlocutory application was filed seeking to send suit promissory notes to handwriting expert to compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures available on discharged promissory notes dated 03-03-2020, 02-06-2020 and 20-10-2020 filed along with the application but the trial Court, without considering the said fact, dismissed the interlocutory application. He, therefore, prays to set aside the order under revision.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff would contend that the petitioner-defendant did not choose to file any authentic document containing his admitted signatures to send the same to expert for comparison. He therefore prays to dismiss the revision.
6. This Court has considered the rival contentions put forth by both learned counsel.
7. A perusal of the record would show that in the written statement, the petitioner-defendant raised a specific plea regarding forgery of suit promissory notes. The person, who is making application to send the document to expert to compare the signature, should assert and file authentic documents containing his or her signatures along with the application. In the case on hand, the petitioner-defendant did not 3 choose to file any authentic document containing his admitted signatures for comparison. The signatures of the petitioner-defendant on the alleged discharged promissory notes, which are self-serving documents, cannot be termed as admitted signatures. Unless the defendant files authentic document containing his admitted signatures, question of sending suit promissory notes to handwriting expert for comparison does not arise. Further, no question was put to the respondent-plaintiff during the course of trial regarding forgery aspect. The trial Court considered all these aspects and rightly dismissed the application. The order of the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and therefore the revision is liable to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence.
_______________________
Date: 21-06-2024, JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
JSK
4
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3320 OF 2023
DATE: 21ST JUNE, 2024
JSK