Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Labbala Sundara Rao Chowdary vs Voona Ramachandra Gupta on 8 November, 2019

Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

             Civil Revision Petition No.2646 of 2019

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 05.07.2019 in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in O.S.No.72 of 2015 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, whereby the petition filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send Ex.A-1 promissory note for examination by the Truth Labs and Truth Finders, Hyderabad was dismissed.

The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.72 of 2015 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.

Parties will be referred to as they were arrayed in the Suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

Facts in a nutshell relevant to dispose of this Civil Revision Petition may briefly be stated as follows:

The suit in O.S.No.72 of 2015 was filed by the plaintiff- respondent against the defendant-petitioner for recovery of the suit money on the foot of Ex.A-1 promissory note. The said Suit is resisted by the defendant on the ground that he did not execute the said promissory note and that it is fabricated. During the course of trial, the defendant filed a petition under Section 45 of the Evidence Act in I.A.No.480 of 2017 to send Ex.A-1 promissory note for examination by the 2 CMR,J.

Expert to the Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, to ascertain the age of the ink. The said petition was allowed by the learned Judge by his order dated 29.08.2017. However, the said document was returned by the A.P. Forensic Science Laboratory on the ground that the age of ink cannot be ascertained in their laboratory.

Therefore, the petitioner has again filed present petition requesting the Court to send Ex.A-1 promissory note to the Truth Labs and Truth Finders, Hyderabad, to ascertain the age of the ink and to submit its report. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Judge by the impugned order on the ground that when the Court allowed the petition in I.A.No.480 of 2017 earlier and sent Ex.A-1 promissory note to the Government Expert that the Court received a letter dated 30.10.2017 from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad that it is not possible to ascertain the age of the ink of writings and signatures and as such, there are no grounds to again send Ex.A-1 promissory note to private expert for the same purpose.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-defendant in the Suit.

Despite service of notice on the respondent-plaintiff, none appeared on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff. 3

CMR,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant and perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant would submit that as there are no sufficient facilities in A.P. Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, that they have returned Ex.A-1 promissory note stating that the age of ink cannot be ascertained on it in their laboratory. However, the Truth Labs and Truth Finders, Hyderabad have the necessary facilities in their laboratory along with the experts on the said subject and the age of ink can be ascertained in the said Lab. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in the case of Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana1 to show that Truth Lab is an ISO certified company and even recommended by several governmental organizations. Therefore, he would contend that mere fact that when the Court has sent the document for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad by its earlier order that it was returned on the ground that there is no possibility to ascertain the age of ink, cannot be a valid ground to dismiss the second petition filed by the petitioner to send the same to the Truth Labs and Truth Finders, Hyderabad which have the necessary facilities along with the experts on the subject to ascertain the age of ink. Therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order and allow the present petition.

1 Judgment of P & H High Court dated 27.02.2015 passed in Civil W.P.No.4554 of 2014 (O&M). 4

CMR,J.

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, has dismissed the said petition on the sole ground that when Ex.A-1 promissory note was earlier sent to A.P. Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, as per order passed in I.A.No.480 of 2017, that it was returned stating that it was not possible to ascertain the age of writings and signatures on Ex.A-1 promissory note.

Learned counsel for the defendant has assailed the said findings as discussed supra on the grounds that there are no adequate facilities in the said laboratory to ascertain the age of ink that they have returned the said document and since the Truth Labs and Truth Finders, Hyderabad, which is an ISO certified company, are equipped with the necessary facilities along with experts on the subject that the same can be ascertained in the said lab.

Therefore, as the trial Court has already come to a conclusion in its earlier order passed in I.A.No.480 of 2017 that as requested by the defendant that the document i.e. Ex.A-1 promissory note is to be sent to the expert for examination to ascertain the age of the ink, the second application filed by him to send the said Ex.A-1 promissory note to another lab i.e. the Truth Labs and Truth Finders, Hyderabad, which is equipped with the necessary facilities and experts on the subject, to ascertain the age of the ink 5 CMR,J.

ought not to have been rejected. Ultimately, the object of sending the said document for examination to ascertain the age of ink is to appreciate the rival contentions of both the parties in the Suit and to find out whether Ex.A-1 promissory note is genuine or not. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is clearly unsustainable.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 05.07.2019 is set aside. The petition filed by the defendant-petitioner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act is allowed. The trial Court is directed to send Ex.A-1 promissory note for examination by the Truth Lab and Truth Finders, Hyderabad and submit its report. No costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall also stand closed.

________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date:08-11-2019.

cs