Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Poojali Varalakshmi, vs Pasupuleti Mukunda on 16 February, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010077642024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[ 3206 ]
FRIDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 318 OF 2024
Between:
1. Poojali Varalakshmi,, W/o Jayapal Reddy, Hindu, aged about 36 years, R/o
Flat No.502, C-Block, Raghunadh Residency, Tanapalli Road, Tirupati Rural
Mandal, Chittoor District.
2. G. Jayapal Reddy,, S/o Sreenivasulu Reddy, Hindu, aged about 40 years, R/o
Flat No.502, C-Block, Raghunadh Residency, Tanapalli Road, Tirupati Rural
Mandal, Chittoor District.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. Pasupuleti Mukunda, S/o Kirshna Moorthy, Hindu, aged about 47 years.
Business, R/o d.No.303-1, Konda Mitta Street, Srikalahasthi Town, Chittoor
District.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the
circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased
topleased to set aside the order dt.05.02.2024 passed in I.A. No.85 of 2023 in
O.S. No.23 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the XII Additional District Judge,
Chitoor District at Srikalahasthi (Old I.A. No.820 of 2022 in O.S. No. 161 of 2016
on the file of III AddI District Judge Court Tirupati) in the interest of justice and
pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No.23 of 2023 on the file
of the Court of the XII Additional District Judge, Chitoor District at S rikalahasthi
(Old I.A. No.820 of 2022 in O.S. No.161 of 2016 on the file of III AddI District
Judge Court Tirupati) district and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO
Counsel for the Respondents: K MOHAN RAMI REDDY
The Court made the following:
The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.23 of 2023 before the XII
Additional District Judge, Chittoor District for recovery of money based on a
promissory note. The petitioners herein, who are defendants have filed I.A.No.85 of
2023, for referring the said signature for comparison to a hand writing expert, on the
ground that the said signature is a forgery. The petitioner also contended that a
criminal complaint filed Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 against the
cheque, issued allegedly in discharge of pro-note amount, has already been
dismissed by the Criminal Court and as such the signature on the pro-note cannot
been accepted to be that of the petitioner.
2. Heard Sri B. Ramshankar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri
K. Mohan Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The Trial Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the said application
by an order dated 05.02.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners had
approached this Court by way of the present Civil Revision Petition.
4. Sri B. Ramshankar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that the signature on the said pro-note is a forgery and the same has not
been accepted by the Criminal Court in the compliant filed under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. He would further submit that the comparison of the
disputed signature on the pro-note with the signature that would obtained from the
petitioners in the open Court would make it amply clear that the signature on the pro-
note is a forgery. He would submit that the Trial Court instead of allowing the
application erred in dismissing the petition. He relies upon the Judgment of the
Learned Single Judge of this Court dated 06.05.2022 in C.R.P.No.558 of 2022.
5. A perusal of the order of the Trial Court shows that the application was
dismissed on the ground that there was no contemporary, admitted, signature
available and it would be highly unsafe to permit the petitioners to sign in the open
Court and send the signed signature to be compared with the disputed signature.
The learned Single Judge, in the Judgment cited by Sri B. Ramshankar Rao, learned
counsel for the petitioners, after referring to the Judgment in the Case of P.
Padmanabhaiah Vs. G. Srinivasa Rao1 had dismissed a similar application seeking
the opinion of handwriting expert in relation to genuineness of a signature.
6. The relevant passage, extracted by the learned Single Judge of this
Court from the Judgment in the case of P. Padmanabhaiah Vs. G. Srinivasa Rao
is as follows:-
"In the well considered view of this Court, the defendants signatures on the
Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be considered as signatures of
comparable and assured standard as according to the plaintiff even by the date of
the filing of the vakalat the defendant is clear in his mind about his stand in regard
to the denial of his signatures on the suit promissory note and the endorsement
thereon and as the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant might have
designedly disguised his signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement
cannot be ruled out prima facie. The view point being projected by the plaintiff that
if the defendant is called upon to furnish his signatures in open Court, he might
designedly disguise his signatures while making his signatures on papers in open
court is also having considerable force and merit. Unless the defendant makes
available to the Court below any documents, with his signatures, of authentic and
reliable nature more or less of a contemporaneous period, and unless such
documents are in turn made available to the expert along with the suit promissory
note, the expert will not be in a position to furnish an assured opinion, in the well
considered view of this Court..........There is no point in sending to an expert the
documents of doubtful nature and character and add one more piece of unreliable
evidence and burden the record by wasting the time and money of the parties.
When there are no signatures of comparable and assured standard on the
material record before the trial Court, it is unsafe to obtain the signatures of the
defendant in open Court and send the said signatures and also his vakalat and
written statement to an expert for obtaining his opinion after comparison of the
signatures thereon with the disputed signatures on the suit promissory note, as
any such opinion obtained from a handwriting expert on such material is not going
to be of any help to the trial Court in effectively adjudicating the lis more
particularly in the light of the admitted legal position that expert's opinion evidence
as to handwriting or signatures can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive
evidence."
1
2017 (2) ALD 368
7. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any reasons to interfere
with the said Order as the comparison of disputed signature with the signature
obtained in the open Court would be highly unsafe and any determination of that
basis would open to doubt.
8. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
BSM
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 318 OF 2024
16-02-2024
BSM
