CRP/893/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 5113 AP

                                   1




         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND


          CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.893 of 2022


O R D E R:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated

21.04.2022 in I.A.No.109 of 2022 in O.S.No.171 of 2016 on the file

of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram.

02. Heard Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, learned Counsel for the Petitioner

and Sri Ghanta Sridhar, learned counsel for the Respondent and

perused the material available on record.

03. The Petitioner is the Defendant and the respondent is the

Plaintiff in O.S.No.171 of 2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,

Ramachandrapuram.

04. For convenience, the parties are referred to as plaintiff and

defendant as arrayed in the trial Court.

Facts:

05. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed an

amount of Rs.9,00,000/- from him and executed a suit promissory

note in his favour after receipt of cash consideration in the presence

of the attestors and scribe. In spite of several requests made by the

Plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to clear off the debt due under

the promissory note, and as such, the plaintiff got issued a registered

legal notice on 30.05.2016. The Defendant gave reply to the Notice

issued by the plaintiff denying the averments made in the Notice.

Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the above said suit against the

defendant.

06. It is the further case of the plaintiff that initially the defendant

filed I.A.No.2036 of 2017 to send the suit Promissory Note-Ex.A.1 to

the handwriting expert for comparison of his signature in the Ex.A.1

with the admitted signatures and the same was allowed. After careful

examination, the Expert opined that the signature on the Ex.A.1 is

tallying with the admitted signatures. Thereafter, with an intent to

drag on the matter, the defendant field I.A.No.109 of 2022 to

examine the age of ink used for fill up the blanks in printed

promissory note and also the age of the inks relating to his signature

on Ex.A.1 to find out the age of the used inks on Ex.A.1 with the age

of paper of Ex.A.1. But, the trial Court, after considering the facts

and circumstances of the case, dismissed the petition observing that

already expert opinion is received by this Court in I.A.No.2036 of

2017, in which the defendant's signature proved on Ex.A.1

Promissory note. As such, the present Civil Revision is devoid of

merits and it is liable to be dismissed.

Contention of the petitioner:-

07. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that the

trial Court failed to give reasons, much less valid reasons for

dismissing the application. From the beginning, the petitioner is

contending that he never borrowed any amount from the respondent

and never executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and

the suit promissory note is a rank forgery, and as such, the intention

of the petitioner to send the document for determination of age of

the ink and age of the paper is genuine and necessary for proper

adjudication of the matter. The trial Court ought to have seen that

the opinion of the handwriting expert cannot be looked into to decide

the issue in the matter and the same can be used as a corroborative

to the material evidence on record. He further submits that with the

advancement of Science and Technology, the determination of the

age of ink with accuracy is now possible and if it is scientifically

established that there is a reasonable gap between the age of two

inks, certainly that finding will help the petitioner to establish his

defense. Therefore, he prays to allow the present Civil Revision

Petition.

08. In support of the contentions of the petitioner, he relied upon

the following judgments, which were relied on before the trial Court:

i) G.V. Rami Reddy v D. Mohan Raju1.

ii) Pendyala Chakrarao v Somu Rayudu2

2019 (4) ALT 400 (SB)

2020 Law Suit (AP) 31

09. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that even if the

difference in the age is ascertained by the said organization, that

alone cannot be a ground to believe the defence version of the

petitioner because as observed in G.V.Rami Reddy's case, there

was every possibility for the defendant to use old ink at the time of

signing on the promissory note so as to suit his defence that he was

going to plead and since such determination is not a determinative

factor to hold the contention of the defendant, there is no point in

referring the Ex.A.1 to Neutron Activation Analysis, BARC, Mumbai.

10. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel and

upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears, while

taking into consideration the facts and circumstances in the above

referred judgments, the trial Court passed an Order while observing

that already expert opinion is received in I.A.No.2036 of 2017, in

which the expert opined that the signature on the Ex.A.1 Promissory

Note is tallied with the admitted signatures of the defendant, and as

such, there is no need to send again to the Expert for age of ink and

paper used for Ex.A.1-Promissory Note.

11. This Court is not having any different opinion with respect to

the proposition of law mentioned in the decisions relied by the

learned counsel for the petitioner. However, the facts and

circumstances in the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for

the petitioner are not applicable to the case on hand since the

petition in I.A.No.2036 of 2017 filed by the petitioner under Section

45 of the Indian Evidence Act, to send Ex.A.1-Promissory Note to the

Handwriting Expert for comparison of his signature in the Ex.A.1 with

the admitted signatures and the same was allowed and the Expert

gave his opinion. The Expert opined that the person, who wrote the

signature upon the Ex. A.1 also wrote the admitted signatures.

12. Besides this, the petitioner already himself examined as Dw.1

and the matter is at the stage of the arguments. It appears, at the

belated stage, to drag on the suit proceedings, the petitioner filed

the present application. Further, it is also observed that there is no

such facility even to determine the age of ink and age of paper of

Promissory note at the Andhra Pradesh State Forensic Science

Laboratories, Amravati, Guntur District, as sought by the petitioner.

Since the expert gave his opinion stating that the signature on Ex.A.1

is tallying with the admitted signatures, there is no necessity to send

the same to the Expert for determination of the age of ink and age of

paper of Promissory Note.

13. Therefore, this Court did not find any irregularity or illegality in

the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.109 of 2022, dated

21.04.2022 and accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere into

the Order passed by the trail Court by exercising power under Article

227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the present Civil Revision

Petition is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed.

14. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

15. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this

case shall stand closed.

______________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Dt.11.08.2022 eha

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.893 of 2022

Dt. 11-08-2022

eha