Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
B K Vijaya Kumari Died vs M Adhusudhan on 20 December, 2022
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI
C.R.P.No.6375 of 2018
O R D E R:
This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the orders dated 14.03.2018 dismissing petition in I.A.No.119 of 2017 in I.A.No.222 of 2016 in O.S.No.15 of 2010 on the file of the court of I Additional District Judge, Chittoor District filed under Section 151 CPC to resend the disputed document to an expert in Nagapur or any other handwriting expert other than APFSL, Hyderabad.
2. The revision petitioners/defendants originally filed I.A.No.222 of 2016 to send the disputed promissory note to a handwriting expert for comparison of the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures. While allowing the petition, the trial Court directed the disputed document to be sent to the government handwriting expert at Hyderabad. Then the revision petitioners filed I.A.No.119 of 2017 to send the document to expert at Nagapur or any other government lab in India other than the one at Hyderabad, on the ground that the plaintiff and the uncle of the plaintiff by name Raghupathi Naidu are very influential person and their relative occupied highest position in APFSL, Hyderabad and therefore the plaintiff and his uncle have capacity to manage the officers and get a favourable report.
3. The petition was opposed by filing the counter of the plaintiff denying the contentions of the petitioners. It is also further contended that 2 CRP No.6375 of 2018 on the misrepresentation of the defendants, in the other suits, documents were sent to private expert at Nagapur at the choice of the defendants and they were successful in getting favourable opinion in those suits by managing the expert and now also they are trying to play similar fraud by misrepresenting that the plaintiff is influential. The petitioners were put to proof that the relative is in the highest position in the APFSL, Hyderabad.
4. After hearing both parties, the trial Court observed that the petitioners have not furnished the name of the relative of the plaintiff and his position in the APFSL, Hyderabad and therefore there is no material to conclude that the relative of the plaintiff occupied highest position in the lab and there is possibility of influencing the authorities therein. Thus, the trial Court found no merit in the petition and dismiss it.
5. Having aggrieved by the order, this revision petition is filed alleging that the trial Court failed to consider the contention of the petitioners.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the same thing and requested this Court to direct the disputed document to be sent to any lab other than APFSL, Hyderabad and furnished a list of labs spread throughout the country of India.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed stating that when the petitioner failed to establish the reasons stated for changing the lab mentioned in the order, just because the petitioners have 3 CRP No.6375 of 2018 unfounded fear, at their mere asking sake, the impugned order need not be interfered.
8. Inspite of giving sufficient time, no details as to who is the person and what is the designation of the person working in APSFL, Hyderabad has been mentioned till today. Though the trial Court dismissed the petition on the very same ground, even in the grounds of revision, no such details were furnished, nor were they informed till now. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition for the petitioners failing in establishing the reasons stated by them for seeking the relief. Thus, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the same, more particularly because the lab to which the document was directed to sent is a government authority.
9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J Dt.20.12.2022.
PNV