Papini Ramulu S/O. Narayana Vs. A.Lavanya D/O. Mandaiah - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1029803
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided OnAug-31-2012
JudgeHON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AN
AppellantPapini Ramulu S/O. Narayana
RespondentA.Lavanya D/O. Mandaiah
Excerpt:
hon'ble sri justice b.n. rao nalla c.r.p.no.3785 of 200.31.08.2012 papini ramulu s/o. narayana a.lavanya d/o. mandaiah counsel for the petitioner: sri palivela satyarajababu counsel for respondent: --- gist : head note: ?cases referred :2009. (1) alt 379cx order: this revision is filed against the order dated 28.07.2009 in i.a. no.366 of 2009 in o.s. no.336 of 2006 on the file of the principal junior civil judge, kothagudem, khammam district. 2. the revision petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit in o.s. no.336 of 2006. the suit is filed for recovery of money. the revision petitioner filed the present application under section 45 of the evidence act to send ex.a.1 - suit promissory note to hand writing and finger print expert for comparison with admitted signatures of the revision petitioner and to give opinion. 3. the case of the revision petitioner is that the respondent filed the suit against him based on the forged promissory note. the revision petitioner filed his written statement in the suit denying the execution of promissory note in favour of the respondent. to prove the genuineness of the promissory note, it is just and necessary to send ex.a.1 - promissory note to hand writing and finger print expert for comparison with admitted signatures and to give opinion. 4. the respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the application and contended that the revision petitioner filed the present application to drag on the suit proceedings in one way or the other. in fact, ex.a.1 - promissory note is a genuine document and as such there are no merits in the application and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. taking into consideration the material available on record and the submissions made by either counsel, the trial court dismissed the application holding that the same is filed to delay the suit proceedings. 6. heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. no representation on behalf of the respondent. 7. it is to be seen that the suit is of the year 2006. written statement filed by the revision petitioner in the same year. it appears the trial has been commenced and pw.1 is examined. the present application is filed in the year 2009 i.e. three years after filing of the suit. further, the trial court is empowered to compare the disputed signature on ex.a.1 - promissory note with that of admitted signatures of the revision petitioner. when the trial court is in a position to compare the disputed signature on ex.a.1 - promissory note with that of admitted signatures of the revision petitioner, the question of sending ex.a.1 - promissory note for expert opinion does not arise. further, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in velaga sivarama krishna v. velaga veerabhadra rao and another1 is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 8. in view of the above discussion and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or irregularity warranting interference from this court, and as such, the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. in the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. no order as to costs. _________________ b.n. rao nalla, j date:31.08.2012
Judgment:

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.

RAO NALLA C.R.P.No.3785 OF 200.31.08.2012 Papini Ramulu s/o.

Narayana A.Lavanya d/o.

Mandaiah Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Palivela Satyarajababu Counsel for Respondent: --- GIST : HEAD NOTE: ?Cases referred :

2009. (1) ALT 379cx ORDER: This revision is filed against the order dated 28.07.2009 in I.A.

No.366 of 2009 in O.S.

No.336 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, Khammam District.

2.

The revision petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.

No.336 of 2006.

The suit is filed for recovery of money.

The revision petitioner filed the present application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send Ex.A.1 - suit promissory note to Hand writing and Finger Print Expert for comparison with admitted signatures of the revision petitioner and to give opinion.

3.

The case of the revision petitioner is that the respondent filed the suit against him based on the forged promissory note.

The revision petitioner filed his written statement in the suit denying the execution of promissory note in favour of the respondent.

To prove the genuineness of the promissory note, it is just and necessary to send Ex.A.1 - promissory note to Hand Writing and Finger Print Expert for comparison with admitted signatures and to give opinion.

4.

The respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the application and contended that the revision petitioner filed the present application to drag on the suit proceedings in one way or the other.

In fact, Ex.A.1 - promissory note is a genuine document and as such there are no merits in the application and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5.

Taking into consideration the material available on record and the submissions made by either counsel, the trial Court dismissed the application holding that the same is filed to delay the suit proceedings.

6.

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

No representation on behalf of the respondent.

7.

It is to be seen that the suit is of the year 2006.

Written statement filed by the revision petitioner in the same year.

It appears the trial has been commenced and PW.1 is examined.

The present application is filed in the year 2009 i.e.

three years after filing of the suit.

Further, the trial Court is empowered to compare the disputed signature on Ex.A.1 - promissory note with that of admitted signatures of the revision petitioner.

When the trial Court is in a position to compare the disputed signature on Ex.A.1 - promissory note with that of admitted signatures of the revision petitioner, the question of sending Ex.A.1 - promissory note for expert opinion does not arise.

Further, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in Velaga Sivarama Krishna v.

Velaga Veerabhadra Rao and another1 is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.

8.

In view of the above discussion and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or irregularity warranting interference from this Court, and as such, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

9.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

_________________ B.N.

RAO NALLA, J Date:31.08.2012