Senior Civil Judge vs Sri Ghanta Sridhar
2022 Latest Caselaw 5116 AP

                                 1

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND


              CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.892 of 2022


O R D E R:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated

21.04.2022 in I.A.No.108 of 2022 in O.S.No.158 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.158 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.10,00,000/- 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

27.05.2016. 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

a petition 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.108 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.2034 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

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

2019 (4) ALT 400 (SB)

2020 Law Suit (AP) 31

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.2034 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.2034 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 signagures 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.108 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.892 of 2022

Dt. 11-08-2022

eha