THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.171 of 2021
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition, Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/defendant, challenging the order, dated 15.12.2020, passed in I.A.No.324 of 2019 in O.S.No.60 of 2014 by the Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet, whereby, the subject interlocutory application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act to send Ex.A.1-original promissory note along with the admitted signatures of the petitioner/defendant to the handwriting expert for comparison and report, was dismissed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and perused the record. In spite of service of notice, there is no representation for the sole respondent/plaintiff.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant would submit that comparison of signatures of the petitioner/defendant on Ex.A.1 promissory note and his admitted signatures is necessary to reach at a just conclusion. The Court below erroneously dismissed the subject interlocutory application without there being any justification. The petitioner/defendant had denied his signature on Ex.A.1 promissory note by filing written statement. Though there is sufficient and justifiable cause to allow the subject interlocutory application as prayed for, the Court below erroneously dismissed the same and Dr.SA, J 2 CRP No.171 of 2021 ultimately prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition as prayed for.
4. As seen from the material placed on record, Ex.A.1 promissory note is said to have been executed on 09.12.2012 by the petitioner/defendant in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The Original Suit in O.S.No.60 of 2014 was filed in the year 2014 and issues were framed in the year 2017. Plaintiff's side evidence was completed on 07.06.2018 and the defendant's counsel reported no further evidence on 15.03.2019 and as such, the trial of the suit concluded and the matter was posted for arguments. At this stage, the petitioner/defendant has filed the subject interlocutory application to send Ex.A.1 promissory note along with his admitted signatures to the handwriting expert for comparison and report. There is no proper explanation from the petitioner/defendant for not filing the subject interlocutory application at an earlier point of time. The Court below, while determining the subject interlocutory application, observed that the petitioner/defendant was not diligent and the subject interlocutory application was filed belatedly. Further, the Court below relied on a judgment reported in T.Venkatswamy Vs. Agiru Pullaiah {2012 (6) ALD 520}, wherein, it was held that naturally, delay in filing an application for expert opinion is a good ground for rejection of the same, unless the delay is properly explained. This Court does not find any fault in the findings recorded by the Court below. Further, the Court below contemplated to examine the disputed signature under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. It is Dr.SA, J 3 CRP No.171 of 2021 culled out from the record that the subject interlocutory application was filed belatedly, particularly when the subject suit is coming up for arguments before the Court below. Under these circumstances, there is nothing to interfere with the order under challenge. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.
____________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J February 26, 2021 Bvv