Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
G V Rami Reddy vs D Mohan Raju on 13 February, 2019
Author: U. Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U. Durga Prasad Rao
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY .THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND | AND NINETEEN ° : :-PRESENT: THE HONGURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 6157 OF 2018 Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the orders dated 13.08.2018 passed in LA.No.8¥4 of 2018 in O.S.No.253 of 2015 on the file of {ll Additional District Judige, Tirupati, Ghittoor District. XK Setween: 1. G V Rami Reddy, S/o Late G.Pulla Reddy, Aged about 55 years, R/o Rayachoti, Kadapa District. ... Revision Petitioner/Petitioner/i™ Defandant AND 1. D Mohan Raju, S/o Late D Venkatrama Raju, Aged about 54 years, Occ Business, R/o Flat No.304, Kota Elision Towers, Kenedy Nagar, Old Tiruchanur Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District. . Respondent/Repondent/Plaintiff IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the petition, the High Coun may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No. 253 of 2015 on the file of the Ii] Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District. The Civil Revision Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the grounds and ithe affidavit fled in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri V.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the Respondent the Court made the following Order: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6157 OF 2018 ORDER:
1. The challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is the order, dated 13.08.2018, in LA, No.874 of 2018 in O.S, No.253 of 2015, passed by the learned If Additional District Judge, Tirupati, dismissing the Petition filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 seeking ta send Ex.A-1 promissory note to F.S.L. to ascertain the age of the signature and the contents therein.
2. The defendant filed the said Pelilion on the contention that he did not execute Ex.A-1 pronote on 20.12.2012 as claimed by the plaintiff, and on the other hand on a different occasion, he borrowed Rs.1,00,000/ from 'the plaintiff and plaintiff obtained his signature on a blank promissory note on 27.08.2008 and also obtained a cheque for security purpose and though the defendant discharged the said debt in March, 2009, the plaintiff returned the cheque but did not return the promissory note and he pressed into service the said blank promissory note and created Ex. Ad with the date 20.12.2012 and filed the instant Suit Thus, in essence, the defendant contends that Ex.A-1 was signed in the year 2008 but not in 2072 and for determination of the age of signature and contents in ExAST, the document be referred to F.S.L.
3. The tral Court mainly relying upen the decision, cited by the plaintiff, reported in Polana Jawaharlal Nehru Vs. Madedirala Prabhakara Reddy', dismissed the Petition. In. that case, Justice V.Ramasubramanian, fearned Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, observed that no useful purpose would be served by referring the 1 2017 (3) ALD S79 ote document to the handwriting expert as it was highly Goubtful that if was Possible for a handwriting expert to fix the age of the ink, where the dispute with regard to the age was only 4 years; at least #f the time gap WS about 30 to 40 , years, it might perk aps be possible far the handwriting expert to fix the age but when the time ¢ gap ple eaced Was just about 4 years, i would not be possible to fix the age. The tral Court Judge, thus, dismissed the Petition,
4. Heard Sri Maheswara Rao Kenchem, learned counsel for fha petitioner, and Sry. Nageswara Rao, kourned couns el for the respondent, 5, Now the paints that arise for determination in this Civil Revisian Petition are:
1. Whether Forensic Expertise {fo determine the age of inkfpen js available jn OUP Cuuntry ta refer the alieged dacument?
< f point Nod is held aff Matively, whether such determination of age of ink/handwriting iS Suffice to upheld the contention of the petitione defen dant, in the instant case?
8. POINT Not: Ht is to be noted that in the decision reported | --
R.Jagadeesan Vs. NAyyasamy®, a a learmed Judge of Madras High Court ascertained from Assi istant Director, Decument Division, Forensic Science Department, Government of Tamilre du Chennai, that there is one institution known as Nutron Activation Analysis, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre {BARC}, Murnbai, where there js facility to find aut the approximate range of the time during which the writings would have been made and it is a Central Government Organization, Basing on the abservation made oy the learned Judge in Jagadessay *, Drdustice B.S Siva Sankara Rao, 4 MANUSTNA9 74/2010» 2 2019.1 CTC 424 learned Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, in hi > ».
decisions reported in T. Rajalingam Vs. State ef Telangana and others* and Namineni Audi Seshaiah Vs. Numburu Mohan Rao' ordered that the documents therein be sent fo the aforesaid organization for determination of age of the ink, i. Thus, from the above, it is clear that there Is an organization called , : g Nutron Activation Analysis, BARC, Mumbai, which is a Central Government Organization, which undertakes the task of determining the age of ink/writing of a document.
§. it should be noted that the decision in Rajalingani', which is an earlier decision, was not referred in Polana Jawaharlal Nehru's case, which was relied upon by the trial Court. Therefore, the view expressed in Polana Jawaharlal Nehru's case cannot be taker as precedent. This paint is, thus, answered affirmatively.
9. POINT No.2: Since point No.1 is held affirmatively, it has now to be seen whether ascertaining the age of the InkAwriting on the document is suffice to uphold the contention of the defendant. Gf course, | must admit that this aspect relates to the appreciation of evidence on the part of the trial Court. However, | venture to frame this point to caution the inal Court in the fight of a crucia} observation made by a learned Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kambala Nageswara Rao Vs. Kesana Balakrishna®, wherein it was observed thus:
"A, bby Ever while pot disputing fis signature an the promissory note, ihe petitioner wanted the age thereof to be determined. Several complications arise in this regard, The mere determination of the age, even if there exists any facility for tha? purpose; cannot, by itself, determine the age of the signature, In a given case, the ink, or for that matter, ihe pen, 3 2047 63) ALT (Grly ZOS (APY #2078 (6) ALD 761) Pog 5 IR 2074 AP SY} may Rave been manufactured several years ago, before it was used, to put.a signature. If there was a gap of 10 years beiween the date of manufacture of ink or pen, and the date on which, the signature was put or document was written, the document cannot be Said to have been executed oF Signed on the date of manufacture of ink or pen."
aoe
10. Therefore, in a given case, though the ink or 4 pen was manufactured in yester years, there is a possibility that a person may elther deliberately or un-knowingly use such ink/pen to make a writing or Signature several years after its manufacture. In such an event, mere determination of the age of ink/writing by an expert will not clinch the issue as to when exactly the maker has wiiten/signed the document Therefore, the Courts must take note of this aspect while appreciating the tival contentions. This point is answered, accardingly.
11. Thus on a conspectus of the aloye findings, the trial Court is not right in relecting the peltioner's request to refer the document to the expert, since the required expertise is available, as noted supra,
72. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting-aside the impugned order and, Consequently, LA. No. 874 of 2078 is allowed and the trial Court is directed to refer Ex.A-4 promissory note to Nufron Activation Analysis, BARC, Mumbai, for determining the age of signature of the defendant at his own expenses. No order as to costs.
13. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand ASSISTANT REGISTRAR He TRUE COPY i! SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice ULDURGA PRASAD RAO (For His Lardshio's Kind Perusal) Te . . mae ¥ .
The 18 Adeditional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District.
9 LR Copies. -- | a The Under Secretary, Union of india, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Dethi. , -
The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates' Association Library, High Court of A.P. | ;
5. One ce to Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, Advocate (opuc}
6. One CC to Sri V.Nageswara Rao, Advocate (apuc}
7. Two C.D. Copies.
2 ND ne =
-
a OD ty Cnt?
4 fv Mey alps % oS, GM Ge wt e % iy, os ae S "ass SY & pitti?
pitty Jif be gg HIGH COURT ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION CRP NO.6157 OF 2018 WITHOUT COSTS.
DATED: 13-02-2019 ORDER