Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
B Devi vs J Giri on 6 January, 2022
Author: R.Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R.Raghunandan Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.387 of 2021
ORDER:-
The respondent has filed O.S.No.350 of 2015 in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi for recovery of money based on a promissory note against the petitioner.
2. The petitioner, in the written statement, had denied the execution of the suit promissory note and had pleaded that the signature of the petitioner in the promissory note is a forgery.
3. The petitioner had also filed I.A.No.43 of 2018 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the suit promissory note for comparison with her admitted signatures to any qualified expert for his opinion and report. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on 10.12.2018 on the ground that the petitioner had not pleaded in her written statement that the signature on the promissory note was not her signature and that the signature was forged.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present civil revision petition.
5. Heard Smt. Kalla Tulasi Durgamba, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
6. A perusal of the written statement filed before this Court clearly show that the petitioner had pleaded that she has not signed on the promissory note and the same is forgery. In the face of such a pleading it is not open to the trial Court to give a finding that no such pleading is there.
2
7. Smt. Kalla Tulasi Durgamba, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even though the order of the trial Court could be set aside on that ground, the fact remains that the petitioner is seeking to send the signature on the promissory note for comparison with her signatures in the vakalat and the written statement and the same cannot be permitted as these documents cannot be treated as documents containing admitted signatures of the petitioner.
8. In view of the rival submissions, it is appropriate to dispose of this Civil Revision Petition setting aside the order, dated 10.12.2018 and directing the trial Court to send the signatures on the promissory note for comparison with any admitted signatures of the petitioner.
9. The said admitted signatures would have to be contemporaneous signatures available on public records or on such documents which are acceptable to the trial Court. For this purpose, the petitioner is granted one month time for producing such documents containing her signatures which can be compared with the signatures on the suit promissory note.
10. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this petition, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Date : 06.01.2022 SPP 3 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.387 of 2021 Date : 06.01.2022 SPP