Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M Krishnamurthy vs K Syamala on 27 September, 2023
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE: CRP No. 1869 of 2023
PROCEEDING SHEET
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
04. 27.09.2023 RNT, J
Heard Ms.Adarshitha Kilaru, learned
counsel for the petitioner.
2. The plaintiff/respondent filed O.S.No.08
of 2018 in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Tirupati based on promissory notes (5 in
number) dated 12.06.2015. The petitioner is the
defendant in the suit. He filed I.A.No.306 of
2021 for comparison of the signatures on the
promissory notes with the admitted signatures, to
hand-writing expert. During the pendency of
I.A.No.306 of 2021, the petitioner filed I.A.No.75
of 2022 to bring on record the documents as
annexed to the said application. The documents
are, the employees income tax declaration form
for the year ending 31.03.2016 i.e. financial year
2015-16, assessment year 2016-17, as also for
the financial year 2015-16. The said application
was allowed by order dated 08.02.2022. The
documents were received subject to proof,
relevancy and admissibility.
2. By the impugned order, the petitioner's
I.A.No.306 of 2021 has been dismissed. The
ground of dismissal is, placing reliance in the case
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
of Byalla Devada v. Sivapuram Rama
Yogeswara Rao {dated 16.03.2022} by
observing that in the said case it was held that
the disputed signatures cannot be sent for
comparison with the signatures of the defendant
on vakalat, written statement and the specimen
signatures taken in the open Court. The other
ground for rejection of the I.A is that the
petitioner could not explain as to how he secured
the documents annexed to I.A.No.75/2022, and
cannot be treated as admitted signatures of the
petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner was seeking
comparison fo the disputed signatures on the
promissory notces with the petitioner's signature
on 'employees income tax declaration form in the
year ending 31.03.2016' documents filed along
with I.A.No.75/2022, which was taken on record
by order dated 08.02.2022, consequently, it is
now not a case of seeking comparison of the
disputed signatures with the signatures on
vakalat, written statement or specimen
signatures taken on record. Consequently, the
submission is that in the judgment in the case of
Byalla Devada (supra) has no relevance. It is
further submitted that those documents related
to the period prior to filing of the suit, and
consequently, the disputed signatures could be
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
sent for comparison with the signatures as on
those documents filed along with memo.
4. Matter requires consideration.
5. Issue notice to the respondent/plaintiff.
6. In addition to the normal mode of
service, learned counsel for the petitioner on her
request is permitted to take out personal notice
for service on the respondent and file proof of
service in the Registry by the next date.
7. Post on 31.10.2023.
8. Till the next date of listing, proceedings
in O.S.No.08 of 2018 on the file of the Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, shall remain stayed.
But it shall be open to the learned trial Court to
consider afresh the petitioner's application for
comparison of signatures, in the light of the
documents in I.A.No.75/2022, with due
opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff/respondent.
_________
RNT, J
Dsr
