Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Borugadda Lourdu Marry vs Kasarabada Poleswara Rao on 25 February, 2021
Author: K. Suresh Reddy
Bench: K. Suresh Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3884 of 2019
ORDER :
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner against the Order and decree, dated 18.11.2019 passed in I.A.No.990 of 2019 in O.S.No.553 of 2016 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.553 of 2016. The respondent, who is the plaintiff filed the above suit before the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- along with interest on the foot of promissory note. The petitioner herein filed written statement and contested the suit. The trial in the suit was commenced and the evidence of plaintiff's side has been completed. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.990 of 2019 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 seeking to send the suit promissory note to the expert for comparison of the signatures. After considering the material on record, the learned trial Judge dismissed the said petition by its order, dated 18.11.2019.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed the present civil revision petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
2
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner never borrowed any amount from the respondent / plaintiff and the suit promissory note is rank forgery one. Therefore, it is necessary to send the suit promissory note to the expert for comparison of signatures.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that it is not necessary to send suit promissory note to the expert, as the petitioner is in the habit of changing her signatures.
7. A perusal of the record reveals that after completion of recording evidence on plaintiff's side, suit was posted for defendant's side evidence on 24.1.2019. After taking several adjournments, the petitioner filed chief-affidavit on 28.02.2019, but she did not choose to attend before the Court for cross- examination inspite of granting several adjournments. Hence, her evidence was eschewed on 11.6.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition seeking to set aside the eschewal order dated 11.6.2019 and the said petition was allowed. After that also, she has taken several adjournments to appear before the Court for the purpose of cross-examination. Ultimately, cross-examination was completed. Later, D.W.2 was examined and even after completion of cross-examination of D.W.2, the petitioner has taken several adjournments for adducing further evidence. At that Juncture, the petitioner came up with the present petition under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act seeking to send the suit promissory note to the expert for comparison of the signatures. Hence, the conduct on 3 the part of the petitioner discloses that only for the purpose of dragging the suit proceedings, the present petition is filed.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances and after considering all these aspects, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the learned trial Judge is justifiable. As such, there are no valid grounds warranting interference of this Court with the impugned order.
9. In that view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of any merit and the order and decree, dated 18.11.2019 passed in I.A.No.990 of 2019 in O.S.No.553 of 2016 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, is hereby confirmed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ K. SURESH REDDY, J 25th Februray,2021.
RPD.
4
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3884 of 2019 Dated : 25.02.2021 RPD.
5