Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ravula Sudhakar Gowd vs M B Madhava Reddy on 24 November, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2406 OF 2022
Between:
1. Ravula Sudhakar Goud,
S/o. Late Ankaiah Gowd, Aged 50 years,
R/o. D.No.25/1-750, 5th cross road,
Z.P.Colony, A.K.Nagar Post,
Nellore Town, SPSR Nellore District.
2. Ravula Anjali,
W/o. Ravula Sudhakar Gowd, Aged 45 years,
R/o. D.No.25/1-750, 5th cross road,
Z.P. Colony, A.K. Nagar Post,
Nellore Town, SPSR Nellore District.
...Petitioners
And
M.B. Madhava Reddy,
S/o. late Rama Lingeswara Reddy,
48 years, R/o. D.No.3-193, Peddivaripalem,
Tadipatri Town and Mandal,
Ananthapuram District.
... Respondent.
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V. Roopesh Kumar Reddy.
Counsel for respondents : ---
ORDER:
1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/Decree holder under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Decree and Order dated 13.09.2022 in 2 I.A.No.887 of 2022 in O.S.No.20 of 2015 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Ananthapuram District at Gooty.
2. The respondent/plaintiff has filed suit in O.S.20 of 2015 against the defendant for recovery of amount on the strength of promissory note. The defendant filed written statement and contended that the promissory note dated 31.10.2012 is forged one and that signatures and thumb impressions appearing on the promissory note does not belong to the defendant and on that ground, he prays the court to dismiss the suit.
3. Pending the suit, the defendant filed petitions to send the document to the expert for comparing the disputed signatures. The said application was allowed and the thumb impression of the defendant and also the signatures were sent to handwriting expert. By the reports dated 27.12.2019 and 28.01.2020, the handwriting expert sent reports to the Court. Handwriting expert came to conclusion that the signature and thumb impression of defendant are similar to the signature and thumb impression appearing on Ex.A1-Promissory note. 3
4. After receipt of those reports, the defendants filed I.A.No.887 of 2022 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the disputed signatures of petitioners and fingerprint of petitioners along with admitted signatures and thumb impression of the first petitioner to the expert of Government Laboratory for comparison and opinion afresh. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioners contended inter alia that in the application made by the defendants, the disputed promissory note along with their admitted signatures and his thumb impression were sent to the expert i.e., Truth Labs Forensic Sciences, Hyderabad and the expert give opinion in the report vide file No. TLH/2D/337/2019 (FP) that the name of the person, whose signature was compared, was mentioned as Sudhakar Reddy, which caused confusion to the petitioners as to whether the expert had compared the signatures with utmost care and caution and whether the opinion given by the expert was free from all factors or not. Hence, the petitioner filed the present application.
5. No counter filed on behalf of the respondents. 4
6. By order dated 13.09.2022, the lower Court while dismissing the application, recorded that the Court carefully has gone through all the documents and also the marking given by the expert that there is a mistake of name i.e., V. Sudhakar Reddy. In fact, the thumb impression of D1 is Ravula Sudhakar Gowd and the mistake occurred in respect of the name in the report and on the basis, entire report cannot be eschewed and dismissed the application. Against the said dismissal, the present Revision is filed.
7. Heard Sri V. Rupesh Kumar Reddy, counsel for the petitioner.
8. Petitioner counsel contended that the name in the expert report was mentioned as Sudhakar Reddy instead of Sudhakar Gowd. Thus it is not clear whether the expert compared the signature of the petitioner or not. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the report of the expert is not clear regarding the name i.e., Sudhakar Goud or Sudhakar Reddy. In view of the same, specially in the weak of the defence regarding forgery, an opportunity would have been given to the petitioners to send the document to the expert again. 5
9. On perusal of the expert report dated 28.1.2020 the opinion of the expert is extracted herewith:
1. The person who wrote the blue enclosed standard signatures marked 'S1' to 'S10' (R.Sudhakar Goud) also wrote the blue enclosed Questioned signatures marked 'Q1' to 'Q3'.
2. The person who wrote the blue enclosed Standard signatures marked 'S11" to 'S22' (R.Anjali) also wrote the blue enclosed Questioned signatures marked 'Q4' to 'Q6'.
The report regarding thumb impression dated 27.12.2019, the name was mentioned as Sudhakar Reddy instead of Sudhakar Goud.
10. In fact, the standards in the report the name of Sudhakar Gowd are mentioned and came to conclusion that the thumb impression belongs to Sudhakar Gowd. However, in conclusion the name of Sudhakar Reddy is mentioned instead of Sudhakar Goud. In fact, the trial Court considered this aspect and came to the conclusion that there is only a mistake occurred in the report regarding the name. This court also is of the considered opinion that except mentioning of wrong name, nothing is wrong.
6
11. In view of the same, since the trial court considered all the aspects, this court does not find any illegality in the order of the trial court.
12. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI.
Date: 24.11.2022 Mnr.
7
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2406 OF 2022 Date: 24.11.2022 Mnr.