Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Avula Narasimha Rao vs Kosana Koteswara Rao on 10 April, 2023
Bench: Subba Reddy Satti
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.155 of 2023
Between:
Avula Narasimha Rao, S/o Penchalaiah, aged
64 years, Occ: Business, r/o Flat No.6, Sridevi
Residency, Bankers Colony, Bakthavatsala
Nagar, Nellore, Nellore District.
... Petitioner/Defendant.
And
Kosana Koteswara Rao (died)
2. Kosana Venugopala Rao, S/o Late Kosana
Koteswara Rao, aged 63 years, Business, R/o
B-99, S.V.N. Colony, Guntur, Guntur District.
... Respondent/Plaintiff.
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Prabhunath Vasireddy
Counsel for respondent : Sri G.L. Nageswar Rao
ORDER
Defendant, in the suit filed the above revision against
the order dated 21.10.2022 in I.A.No.1072 of 2019 in
O.S.No.104 of 2018 on the file of learned II Additional District
Judge, Guntur.
Page 2 of 8 SRS,J
CRP No.155 of 2023
2. Plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.104 of 2018 against the
defendant for recovery of amount basing on four promissory
notes, dated 30.01.2015, 30.01.2015, 10.11.2015 and
10.11.2015 respectively.
3. Defendant, by filing written statement denied his
signature on the promissory notes. Defendant also stated
that he never saw face of the plaintiff.
4. Pending the suit, defendant filed I.A.No.1072 of 2019
under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to send
Exs.A1 to A3 to the handwriting expert for comparison with
the admitted signatures.
5. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, while
reiterating contentions in the written statement, defendant
prayed to send Exs.A1 to A3 for comparison of signature with
admitted signatures of the petitioner.
6. Plaintiff filed counter and opposed application.
7. Trial Court, by order, dated 21.10.2022 dismissed the
petition. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is filed.
8. Heard learned counsel on either side.
Page 3 of 8 SRS,J
CRP No.155 of 2023
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that
defendant denied execution of promissory notes. He submits
that in fact, defendant has no acquaintance with the plaintiff.
In view of the specific plea raised in the written statement,
defendant filed I.A. to send Exs.A1 to A3 to handwriting
expert. Court below without appreciating the same dismissed
the I.A.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
while supporting order of the trial Court would submit that
there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court. Learned
counsel, further contended that no authentic document,
containing the admitted signatures, was filed.
11. The point for consideration is whether the trial Court
failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested with it?
12. A perusal of the order shows that trial Court opined
that petition was filed at a belated stage only to dragon on the
proceedings.
13. The Full Bench of composite High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad Vs.
Page 4 of 8 SRS,J
CRP No.155 of 2023
Ravi Surya Prakash Babu and Ors.1, while affirming the
ratio of division bench in Janachaitanya Housing Ltd. Vs.
Divya Financiers (AIR 2008 AP 163) observed as follows:
"It is essentially within the judicious discretion of the
Court, depending on the individual facts and
circumstances of the case before it, to seek or not to seek
expert opinion as to the comparison of the disputed
handwriting/signature with the admitted handwriting/
signature under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872. The Court is however not barred from sending the
disputed handwriting/ signature for comparison to an
expert merely because the time gap between the admitted
handwriting/signature and the disputed handwriting/
signature is long. The Court must however endeavour to
impress upon the petitioning party that comparison of
disputed handwritings/signatures with admitted
handwritings/signatures, separated by a time lag of 2 to
3 years, would be desirable so as to facilitate expert
comparison in accordance with satisfactory standards.
That being said, there can be no hard and fast rule about
this aspect and it would ultimately be for the expert
concerned to voice his conclusion as to whether the
disputed handwriting/ signature and the admitted
handwriting/signature are capable of comparison for a
viable expert opinion. The view expressed by the Division
Bench in JANACHAITANYA HOUSING LIMITED v. DIVYA
FINANCIERS MANU/AP/0137/2008MANU/AP/0137/
2016 (2) ALD 1
Page 5 of 8 SRS,J
CRP No.155 of 2023
2008 : 2008 (3) ALT 409 (DB), as to the stage of the
proceedings when an application can be moved by a
party under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
continues to hold the field and there is no necessity for
this Full Bench to address that issue."
14. In Janachaitanya Housing Ltd. case, on reference the
Division Bench of composite High of Andhra Pradesh held as
follows:
"9. For the reasons aforementioned, we answer the
reference thus: "No time could be fixed for filing
applications under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act
for sending the disputed signature or writings to the
handwriting expert for comparison and opinion and same
shall be left open to the discretion of the court; for
exercising such discretion when exigencies so demand,
depending upon the facts and circumstances of the each
case."
15. In view of expressions in the above referred judgments,
filing of application at belated stage is not a ground to
dismiss the petition. The Court must consider the pleadings
of the parties. In the case on hand, petitioner took a plea that
he had no acquaintance with the plaintiff and the signatures
on Ex A-1 to A-3 are forged. I.A. was filed in consonance with
Page 6 of 8 SRS,J
CRP No.155 of 2023
the pleadings raised in written statement. Trial Court ought
to have exercised the jurisdiction vested with it.
16. However, in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
defendant did not disclose regarding the admitted signatures
on authenticated documents. I.A.No.2 of 2023 was filed in the
above revision to receive copy of registered Joint Development
Agreement -Cum- G.P.A., dated 02.01.2015, entered into
between Talapaneni Anil Kumar and NRS Infra, a partnership
firm represented by its Managing Partner, Avula Narasimha
Rao, which contains signatures of the defendant. Promissory
notes marked as Exs A-1 to A-3 are of the year 2015 and the
registered document now filed is also of the year 2015. In
view of the discussion supra, this Court deems it appropriate
to allow this civil revision petition.
17. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Order
dated 21.10.2022 in I.A.No.1072 of 2019 in O.S.No.104 of
2018 on the file of learned II Additional District Judge,
Guntur, is set aside. I.A.No.1072 of 2019 stands allowed.
The learned Trial Court shall send Exs.A1 to A3 along with
original registered Joint Development agreement -cum- GPA,
Page 7 of 8 SRS,J
CRP No.155 of 2023
dated 02.01.2015 to be filed by the defendant before trial
Court, to handwriting expert for comparison of signatures on
the payment of expenses by the defendant. Defendant shall
file original registered Joint Development agreement -cum-
GPA, dated 02.01.2015 before the trial Court within a period
of two weeks from today along with affidavit. On such filing of
the affidavit, trial Court shall pass appropriate orders in
sending Ex A-1 to A-3 to hand writing expert to compare the
signature with the Joint Development agreement -cum- GPA,
dated 02.01.2015 to any government hand writing expert. No
costs.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications
shall stand closed.
_________________________
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
Date : 10.04.2023
Note : Furnish C.C. today.
B/o
ikn
Page 8 of 8 SRS,J
CRP No.155 of 2023
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.155 of 2023
Date : 10.04.2023
ikn
