Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Shaik Allabaksh vs V Gurava Reddy on 9 February, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2716 of 2023
ORDER:
The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.265 of 2015 in
the Court of the Learned V Additional District Judge, Tirupati
for recovery of money on the basis of promissory notes which
have been marked as Exhibits A-1 & A-2.
2. The stand of the petitioner is that these
promissory notes are forgeries and fabricated by the
respondent. The petitioner also took the stand that the
fabrications and material alterations in the promissory notes
would non-suit the respondent and in any event the
difference in ink and the age of the hand writing would also
support the case of the petitioner.
3. To demonstrate his case, the petitioner moved
I.A.No.350 of 2023 in O.S.No.265 of 2015 for the following
relief:
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying
affidavit it is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to send the promissory
notes marked as Exhibit A-1 & A-2 in the above
suit to the Hand writing expert to examine and
opine on the material alterations of the numerical
digits of Rs.12,00,000/- in Exhibit A-1; and the
material alterations of the numerical digits of
Rs.10,00,000/- in Exhibit A-2; and to compare the
signatures of the Petitioner/Defendant with his
admitted signatures and also the differences in
Ink and Script of the recitals of Exhibit A-1 & A-2
promissory notes to arrive at a just and proper
conclusion of the subject matter in order to
advance the cause of justice in adjudicating the
suit and pass such orders and such any other
orders in the circumstances of the case in the
interests of justice and equity.
4. The Trial Court, by an order dated 29.09.2023
had dismissed the said application on the ground that the
petitioner had only sought comparison of the disputed
signatures on Exhibits A-1 & A-2 with his admitted
signatures and such comparison was not possible as there
were no admitted signatures of the petitioner available.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has
moved the present Civil Revision Petition.
6. Sri Srinivasulu Kurra, learned counsel for the
petitioner would submit that the Trial Court, while dismissing
the petition, had recorded that the questions of material
alterations, difference in age of ink and the question of age of
the hand writing in the promissory notes were not pleaded in
the application when such averments were clearly available in
the affidavit filed in support of the application.
7. Heard Sri B. Venkatesh Reddy, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of VMR Legal for the respondents.
8. The finding of the Trial Court that the petitioner
had not raised the issues of difference in the ink used,
material alterations etc., appears to be erroneous view.
9. The question of sending the pro-notes for
examination for determining the age of the ink is no more
res integra. A learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of
G.V. Rami Reddy Vs. D. Mohan Raju1 had taken the view
that such a comparison is permissible and possible and had
directed that the BARC, Mumbai would be requested to
conduct Nutron Activation Analysis for determining the age of
the signature of the defendant in the said case.
10. However, subsequent Judgments of various
Hon'ble High Courts had taken the view that such an
analysis is not technically possible. A Learned Single Judge of
this Court, after reviewing the said Judgments, in
C.R.P.No.1195 of 2022 had held that the said evaluation of
the age of the ink is not possible. I am in respectful
2019 (2) ALT 253
agreement with the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge in
C.R.P.No.1195 of 2022.
11. As far as the question of alteration of the
numerals and difference in the ink used is concerned, the
same can always be examined and compared by the Trial
Court and it is only in the event of the Trial Court being
unable to make out any such alteration or change in ink etc.,
and in the event of the Learned Trial Judge require further
assistance in the matter, it would be necessary for referring
these questions to an appropriate expert.
12. In these circumstances, this Civil Revision
Petition is closed with the aforesaid observations. There shall
be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,
shall stand closed.
____________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
09.02.2024
MJA/BSM
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2716 of 2023
09.02.2024
MJA/BSM
