Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Amaresam Lakshmi Lavanya vs Chebrolu Venkateswarlu on 2 February, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.210 OF 2023
ORDER:
The present Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved
by the order of the Court below returning the Interlocutory Application,
which was filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of Indian Evidence
Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to
send the suit promissory note Ex.A1 (dated 15.08.2015) to the hand
writing expert for comparison with the contemporaneous and admitted
signatures. The said Interlocutory Application was returned thrice with
an objection 'contemporaneous signatures of the petitioner/defendant
to be filed'.
2. Heard Sri M. Chalapati Rao, leaned counsel for the petitioner
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has
been stated in the grounds contended that, the petitioner, who is
defendant before the Court below filed an Interlocutory Application
under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, duly praying the Court
below to send promissory note to the handwriting expert for
comparison with the contemporaneous and admitted signatures i.e.,
the signatures on the suit summons and notices served on the
defendant by the Court below, which are available in the record. But,
the same was returned three times on 03.12.2022, 03.01.2023 and
19.01.2023, respectively, with the same objection. In spite of
complying with the objection and re-presenting it each time with a
detailed note along with judgment of the Hon'ble High Court on the
subject, the I.A. was not numbered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that now
the suit is coming up for arguments, but the Court below has not
numbered the I.A. Therefore, prayed to pass appropriate orders in
that regard. Hence, the present Revision Petition is filed seeking to
pass appropriate orders.
4. Perused the record.
5. The office objection that has been taken by the Court below is
that the contemporary signatures of the petitioner/defendant are to be
filed as such it was returned. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in
spite of re-submitting the application, duly stating that the
contemporary signatures are in the custody of the Court below i.e. the
signature of the petitioner on suit summons and notices and filing a
certified copy of the Mortgage Deed dated 30.11.2012, which was
executed by the petitioner in favour of the Indian Overseas Bank,
Chemakurthi and in spite of bring legal position by placing the
judgment reported in 2018 (2) ALT 594, the Court below is not
numbering the application and returned it on three occasions with the
same objection.
6. It is seen from the record, the objection raised by the Court
below was complied with by the petitioner. It is not known as to why
the Court below is returning the I.A. without numbering.
7. In such circumstances, the petitioner is directed to re-present
the I.A. before the Court below and on such re-presentation the Court
below is directed to number the I.A. if it is otherwise in order, other
than the objection regarding contemporaneous signatures and insofar
as requirement of the original document which is sought to be filed is
concerned, the same has to be considered while considering the I.A.
on merits and shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law,
within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
The petitioner is permitted to take original Interlocutory
Application, which is filed along with the Revision, for re-presenting it
before the Court below.
Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
________________________
JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
2nd January, 2023.
Issue CC in two days
(B/o)
GBS
