Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Lakkapamula Rani vs Manda Batasari on 23 March, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1361 OF 2021
Between:
Lakkapamula Rani, W/o Ravi Kumar,
36 years, Hindu, House Maker,
R/o Isukapatla Pangidi Village,
Kovvuru Mandal, West Godavari
District, Kovvuru PJCJC. .... Petitioner
Versus
Manda Batasari, S/o Kotaiah, 44 years,
Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Ramachandrapuram
Village, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District,
Nuzvid. .... Petitioner
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 23-03-2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals.
3. Whether Their ladyship/Lordship wish Yes/No
to see the fair copy of the Judgment?
_________________________
NAINALA JAYASURYA, J
2
NJS, J
Crp_1361_ 2021
*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1361 OF 2021
%Date: 23.03.2022
# Lakkapamula Rani --- Petitioner
and
$ Manda Batasari --- Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.Ch.B.R.P. Sekhar
^ Counsel for Respondents : Smt.Santhi Sree Vallabhaneni
< GIST : --
> HEAD NOTE : --
? Cases referred : --1) C.R.P.No.2121 of 2016 dt.07.12.2016
2) 2016(2) ALT 248
3
NJS, J
Crp_1361_ 2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1361 of 2021
ORDER:
The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the Orders
passed in I.A.No.268 of 2021 in O.S.No.244 of 2014 on the file of the
Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna District.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Ch.B.R.P. Sekhar
and the learned counsel for the respondent Smt.Santhi Sree Vallabhaneni.
3. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the above referred suit.
The respondent/plaintiff filed the above said suit seeking Specific
Performance of an Agreement of Sale dated 20.01.2014 and for other
reliefs. In the written statement a plea was taken that the Agreement of
Sale was fabricated by forging the signatures of the petitioner/defendant
and her husband. After the completion of the respondent's/plaintiff's
arguments in the said suit and when the matter is coming up for
petitioner's/defendant's arguments, I.A.No.268 of 2021 was filed by the
petitioner/defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act R/w
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a direction to send
Ex.A.1 Agreement of Sale dated 20.01.2014 and the papers on which the
signatures of the petitioner/defendant would be taken in open Court and
other documents containing her signatures i.e., the suit summons,
vakalat, postal acknowledgement, written statement etc., to the
Government Handwriting Expert for comparison of the said signatures and
to give expert's opinion. The said application was resisted by the
respondent/plaintiff by filing a counter. The learned Senior Civil Judge
after considering the matter, by an order dated 07.10.2021 dismissed the
said application. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition.
NJS, J
Crp_1361_ 2021
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the
alleged Agreement of Sale was executed on 20.01.2014 and the suit was
filed on 21.07.2014 and thereafter written statement was immediately
filed on 05.09.2014. He submits that a specific plea was taken in the
written statement that the alleged Agreement of Sale is a forged
document, not executed by the petitioner/defendant. He submits that in
the light of the said categorical stand of defence, it is all the more
appropriate to refer the alleged Agreement of Sale for expert's opinion, so
that the truth would come out. He submits that no prejudice would be
caused to the respondent/plaintiff as the signatures would be taken in the
open Court and the same would be sent along with the other documents
which are already available before the Court i.e., suit summons, vakalat,
written statement, postal acknowledgements for comparison to the expert.
He further submits that the report of the expert on comparing the
signatures on the documents referred to him would aid the Court in
evaluation of evidence and in the event of any adverse opinion, it would
be open to the aggrieved party to challenge the same. He submits that
the learned Senior Civil Judge instead of considering the application in the
correct perspective went wrong in dismissing the same, on the ground
that the same was not filed at an appropriate stage, but belatedly after
completion of the arguments of the respondent/plaintiff, which is totally
unsustainable. He submits that it is settled Law that an application seeking
expert's opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act can be filed
at any stage of the Trial, even after conclusion of the arguments and
ignoring the said aspect, the learned Trial Court had dismissed the I.A,
which constitutes failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. He submits
that mere delay cannot be a ground for rejecting the application seeking
NJS, J
Crp_1361_ 2021
expert's opinion and the learned Trial Court, in the event was of the
opinion that there was delay, the same should have been condoned by
imposing costs. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks
setting aside of the Order of the learned Trial Court and prays for allowing
the Civil Revision Petition.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff
refuted the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. She submits
that the Order of the learned Trial Court is well considered and based on
sound reasoning. She submits that as rightly observed by the learned Trial
Court, the petitioner/defendant was dragging on the matter without
advancing the arguments and took as many as six adjournments for
arguments on behalf of the petitioner/defendant. She submits that instead
of proceeding with the arguments, the petitioner/defendant came up with
the above I.A only with a view to prolong the disposal of the suit, with evil
motives. While submitting that the learned Trial Court had assigned
cogent reasons for rejection of the I.A filed by the petitioner/defendant
and the Order does not suffer from any perversity or irregular exercise of
jurisdiction she submits that there are no valid grounds calling for
interference by this Court.
6. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for both sides. On a scrutiny of the contentions, the point that
falls for consideration by this Court is as to whether the Order of the Trial
Court dismissing the application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence
Act is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case?
7. As seen from the pleadings available on record with reference to
the plaint averments and the relief sought, the petitioner/defendant filed
her written statement denying the execution of the Agreement of Sale
NJS, J
Crp_1361_ 2021
dated 20.01.2014. It is her case that the said Agreement was fabricated
by forging the signatures of the petitioner/defendant. To substantiate her
stand, the petitioner/defendant sought for sending all the signatures
obtained in the open Court along with the suit summons, vakalat, written
statement etc., for comparison to the expert. However, the said
application was dismissed primarily on the premise that the application
was filed after closure of plaintiff's arguments and the matter is coming up
for arguments of the defendants and was adjourned more than six times.
In so far as the said view of the learned Trial Court with regard to the
delay is concerned, the same cannot be accepted.
8. Though the Order under Revision is liable for interference on that
score, the direction sought, for referring the documents to expert for
opinion for comparison of signatures cannot be granted in the light of the
expression of this Court in P.Padmanabhaiah vs. G.Srinivasa Rao1,
wherein the learned Judge dealt with a matter regarding an application of
the defendant in the suit to send the vakalat and written statement
containing her signatures along with the promissory note to handwriting
expert for comparison of signatures of the petitioner/defendant on the
vakalat and written statement with the signatures said to be of him and
furnish a report with opinion as to the genuineness or otherwise of the
disputed signatures on the exhibits. The learned Judge while interfering
with the orders of the Trial Court in allowing the application, had dealt
with the matter with reference to comparison of signatures on vakalat and
written statement with the disputed documents and inter alia, held as
follows:-
NJS, J
Crp_1361_ 2021
"In the well considered view of this Court, the defendants signatures on the Vakalat
and the Written Statement cannot be considered as signatures of comparable and
assured standard as according to the plaintiff even by the date of the filing of the
vakalat the defendant is clear in his mind about his stand in regard to the denial of his
signatures on the suit promissory note and the endorsement thereon and as the
contention of the plaintiff that the defendant might have designedly disguised his
signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be ruled out prima facie.
The view point being projected by the plaintiff that if the defendant is called upon to
furnish his signatures in open Court, he might designedly disguise his signatures while
making his signatures on papers in open court is also having considerable force and
merit. Unless the defendant makes available to the Court below any documents, with
his signatures, of authentic and reliable nature more or less of a contemporaneous
period, and unless such documents are in turn made available to the expert along with
the suit promissory note, the expert will not be in a position to furnish an assured
opinion, in the well considered view of this Court. .........There is no point in sending to
an expert the documents of doubtful nature and character and add one more piece of
unreliable evidence and burden the record by wasting the time and money of the
parties. When there are no signatures of comparable and assured standard on the
material record before the trial Court, it is unsafe to obtain the signatures of the
defendant in open Court and send the said signatures and also his vakalat and written
statement to an expert for obtaining his opinion after comparison of the signatures
thereon with the disputed signatures on the suit promissory note, as any such opinion
obtained from a handwriting expert on such material is not going to be of any help to
the trial Court in effectively adjudicating the lis more particularly in the light of the
admitted legal position that expert's opinion evidence as to handwriting or signatures
can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence."
9. In the light of the above well considered view of the learned Judge,
this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned
Trial Judge, though the view taken with regard to stage of filing of the
application is contrary to the judgment of the Full Bench in Bande Siva
Shankara Srinivasa Prasad vs. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu 2. The Civil
Revision Petition therefore fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as
to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall
stand closed.
__________________
NINALA JAYASURYA, J
Date: .03.2022
IS
2 2016(2) ALT 248
NJS, J
Crp_1361_ 2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
Civil Revision Petition No.1361 of 2021
Date: .03.2022
IS
