Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Doosi Rama Rao vs Puttutu Munirathnam Reddy on 29 September, 2023
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1150 of 2016
Between:
# Doosi Rama Rao, S/o. Ranga Rao,
Aged about not known, Hindu,
Occ: Business, R/o.D.No.12/90,
Damaramda Street, Tirumala
Chittoor District.
... Petitioner
And
$ Puttutu Munirathnam Reddy,
S/o. Chenga Reddy, aged not known to the
Plaintiff, Occ: Business, R/o.D.No.855,
Balaji Nagar, Tirumala.
... Respondent
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 29.09.2023
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see
- Yes -
the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals - Yes -
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the
- Yes -
Judgment?
___________________________________
DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
2
* THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1150 of 2016
% 29.09.2023
Between:
# Doosi Rama Rao, S/o. Ranga Rao,
Aged about not known, Hindu,
Occ: Business, R/o.D.No.12/90,
Damaramda Street, Tirumala
Chittoor District.
... Petitioner
And
$ Puttutu Munirathnam Reddy,
S/o. Chenga Reddy, aged not known to the
Plaintiff, Occ: Business, R/o.D.No.855,
Balaji Nagar, Tirumala.
... Respondent
! Counsel for the Petitioner(s): Sri P.C. Reddy
Counsel for Respondent(s): Sri N. Bharath Babu
<Gist :
>Head note :
?Cases referred :
1. 2009 (1) ALD 265
2. 2010 (4) ALD 484
3
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1150 of 2016
ORDER :
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner
against the Order, dated 25.01.2016 passed in I.A.No.1668
of 2015 in O.S No.289 of 2008 on the file of the Principal
Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti (for short "the trial Court").
2. Heard Sri P.C. Reddy, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Sri N. Bharath Babu, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents.
3. The present impugned I.A.No.1668 of 2015 in O.S
No.289 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner under Section 45
of Indian Evidence Act seeking to send the agreement Ex.A1
along with the admitted signatures of the defendant to the
Government handwriting expert, Forensic Science
Laboratory to compare his signatures on the Ex.A1 with the
admitted signatures of the petitioner are one and same. The
case of the petitioner is that the respondent denied his
signature on the agreement of Sale dated 24.3.1997 which
was marked as Ex.A3 and the scribe and attestor of the
document who examined as PWs.2 and 3 were gained over
by the defendant and they did not support his case, hence it
is just and necessary for him to send the document to the
handwriting expert along with admitted signatures of the
defendant available on record. Hence, the petitioner filed
present I.A before the trial Court. But the trial Court has
dismissed the said I.A. on the ground that there are no
grounds to allow the same. Challenging the same, the
present civil revision petition has been filed.
5. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner
while reiterating the contents made in the affidavit, submits
that, the Court below erred in dismissing the IA on the
ground that the contemporaneous documents containing
the signature of the defendant in ex.A3 pertaining to the
year 1997 are not available though the admitted signatures
of the defendant are available on the vakalat and written
statement. He further submits that the trial Court ought to
have seen that the scribe and attestor of the Ex.A3 were
examined as PW.2. and PW.3 who did not speak about the
execution of Ex.A3 by the defendant and as they were
gained over by the defendant and as such it is essential for
the petitioner to send the Ex.A3 document for expert opinion
to substantiate the defendant had executed Ex.A3
agreement of sale.
6. To support his contentions learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon the judgments of the High Court
of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad reported in (i)
Velaga Sivarama Krishna v. Velaga Veerabhadra rao and
another1, wherein it was held that "whenever a party
disputes the signature on a particular document, two
remedies are open to him, either to request the Court to
compare the signatures or to file an application to send the
document to the expert for comparison."
(ii) In Valladasu Alivelu v. Moguthula Yadaiah and
another2, wherein it was held that "Evidence Act 1872
Section 45 - comparison of expert - application for, dismissal
of, on ground that plaintiff came up with said application to
delay proceedings in main suit, impropriety-
petitioner/plaintiff filed petition to send document to
handwriting expert on 16.11.2009 ...it cannot be said that
2009 (1) ALD 265
2010(4) ALD 484
petition moved by the petitioner, within two months of
marking Ex.B1 is to drag on proceedings in suit."
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the trial Court rightly dismissed the said
application as there are no grounds and hence the present
civil revision also liable for dismissal. He relied upon a
decision of this Court in CRP No.1255 of 2021, dated
15.02.2023, wherein this Court has allowed the revision
petition and held that " directed the petitioner therein to
produce the documents containing her authenticated and
admitted signatures originated prior to Ex.A1 pronote, in
which case the trial Court shall refer such documents along
with Ex.A1 to the handwriting expert for his opinion."
8. Section 45 of Evidence Act, 1872 (for short "the
Act"), reads as under:
Section 45. Opinions of experts -
When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign
law or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting, 1[or
finger impressions], the opinions upon that point of persons
specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, 2[or in
questions as to identity of handwriting] 1[or finger impressions
]are relevant facts.
Such persons are called experts.
9. On a perusal of the above section, a document can
be sent to the Handwriting Expert for the purpose of
comparison of handwriting or signatures on the disputed
documents.
Section 73 of the Act reads as under:
Section 73 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved.--In
order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by
whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal
admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made
by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although
that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other
purpose. The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or
figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so
written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person.
1[This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger-
impressions."
10. On a perusal of the above section, the Court can
compare the signatures on the disputed document with the
admitted signatures.
11. In the present case, the petitioner has filed an I.A
immediately as soon as the PWs.2 and 3 were cross
examined i.e., in the month of September 2015 and as such
there is no delay on the part of the petitioner in filing
application under Section 45 of Evidence Act. PW.2 who is
the scribe of the Ex.A3 who deposed that he does not know
the contents of the document at the time of scribing the
document the plaintiff alone present, which is evident to
show that PW.2 has gained over by the respondent.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court
observed that, whenever a party disputes the signature on a
particular document, two remedies are open to him, either
to request the court to compare the signatures or to file an
application to send the document to the expert for
comparison. When the petitioner opted to file an application
to send the document to the Handwriting expert, no
prejudice will be caused to either party. When he is
asserting that the signature is that of the said party, even
though there is a gap between the disputed signatures and
admitted signatures, a science has been developed to
compare such signatures also by taking into consideration
the direction of the strokes, the speed of writing, the pattern
of writing etc., therefore it cannot be said that no useful
purpose will be served by sending the document to the
expert.
13. In view of the above circumstances, this Court is
of the view that it is essential to send the document to the
expert for comparison at the request of the party in the
interest of justice, which cannot cause any amount of
prejudice to the defendants, in the present case. Therefore,
the order of the trial court is liable to be set aside.
14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed
by setting aside the impugned Order, dated 25.01.2016
passed in I.A.No.1668 of 2015 in O.S No.289 of 2008 by the
trial Court, Further, the trial Court is directed to send
Ex.A1 along with admitted signatures of the defendant to
the handwriting expert for comparison, within a period of
two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. On receipt of report from the Handwriting expert, the
trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.289
2008, as expeditiously, as possible, preferably within a
period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
15. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous
applications shall stand closed.
______________________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 29 - 09-2023
Note : LR copy to be marked.
(b/o)Gvl
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1150 of 2016
Date : 29 .09.2023
Gvl
