HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
C.R.P.No.321 of 2021
ORDER:
The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.86 of 2018 against the petitioner herein in the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District, for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note said to have been executed by the petitioner herein.
2. The petitioner/defendant, in his written statement had taken the plea that he had set up business of water plants for purification of water and was having the business at various places including Tadepalli village, Hyderabad etc. However, as he was a resident of Hyderabad, he relied upon his brother-in-law, viz., Simhadri Srinivasa Reddy to manage his business at Tadepalli. The Said Simhadri Srinivasa Reddy and one Sri Trinadh Reddy, who is also cousin of the petitioner, were taking care of the business at Tadepalli. For meeting the financial requirements to run the business smoothly, the petitioner used to deliver blank signed promissory notes and cheques to these two persons. Subsequently, differences arose between the petitioner and these two persons as they were not rendering proper accounts and were misappropriating the funds of the petitioner. Because of these differences, the petitioner shifted his business to Undavalli village and kept these two persons away from his business. On account this, these two persons developed a grouse against the petitioner and misused the blank signed promissory notes and blank signed cheques, which were in their wrongful and unlawful custody. They fabricated the promissory notes in the name of Sri Simhadri Srinivasa Reddy on the basis of which O.S.No.1 of 2018 had been filed before the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.
2 RRR,J
C.R.P.No.321 of 2021
3. On account of these fabrications the petitioner had also complained before the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, against these persons. However, these persons have now put forward the respondent herein and got O.S.No.86 of 2018 filed against him. The petitioner herein denied any debt due to the respondent herein and claimed that the pro-note had been deliberately fabricated. Thereafter, the petitioner also filed I.A.No.498 of 2019 for sending the suit pro-note, which had been marked as Ex.A.1, to handwriting expert to establish the fact of fabrication, material alteration, forging of signature etc. In the application, the petitioner had also taken the contention that the dates in Ex.A.1 had been materially altered from 10.08.2013 to 10.08.2015 and had also altered the figures Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.7,00,000/-. The case of the petitioner is that these variations and alterations would be sufficient to non-suit the respondent herein.
4. The respondent filed his counter and contended that there is no specific plea of material alteration in the written statement, which would entitle the petitioner to obtain the opinion of a handwriting expert at this stage. After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the application by order dated 06.08.2020. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of the present revision petition.
5. The trial Court took the view that even though the petitioner had contended that the signature had been fabricated, in the written statement it is not the case of the petitioner that dates and amounts had also been filled up in the pro-note and the same were being altered, and dismissed the application.
3 RRR,J
C.R.P.No.321 of 2021
6. Sri P. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the alterations in the pro-note are clear to the naked eye and the verification of such alterations by an expert would go to demonstrate the case of the petitioner beyond any doubt.
7. Sri J. Dileep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the order of the trial Court is a well considered order and does not require any interference. He submits that the trial Court had rightly pointed out that it is not the case of the petitioner that the pro-note had originally been filled up and there were subsequent alterations. In the absence of such pleadings in the written statement and in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the petitioner cannot raise such issues as a ground for referring the pro-note to a handwriting expert.
8. Sri P. Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.R.P.No.6095 of 2018 dated 25.04.2019.
9. The conduct of the petitioner in raising an issue of misuse of pro-notes given by him earlier and the filing of criminal complaint against the persons, who are said to have fabricated or altered the pro-notes clearly shows that the petitioner has taken a consistent stand right from the beginning that the persons mentioned above had misused the trust and confidence reposed by him on them and created pro-notes and filed the suits against him for recovering money from him.
10. In the circumstances, since the sheet anchor of his defence is the alleged alterations and fabrications, it would only be appropriate to allow the suit pro-note to be sent for examination by a handwriting expert. The view of the trial Court, that such an examination is not 4 RRR,J C.R.P.No.321 of 2021 necessary on the ground that the pleadings in the application do not make out a case for reference, does not appear to be correct.
11. In the circumstances, this civil revision petition is allowed with a direction to refer the suit pro-note to a handwriting expert for the purpose set out in the application filed by the petitioner herein. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
9th February, 2022 Js.
5 RRR,J
C.R.P.No.321 of 2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
C.R.P.No.321 of 2021
9th February, 2021
Js.