Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Unknown vs The on 9 February, 2022
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.
