Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Yenni Venkata Ramana vs Boyana Ramesh Kumar on 6 November, 2024

 APHC010404752024
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                  AT AMARAVATI                          [3331]
                            (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                WEDNESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
                   TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                  PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

                    CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2267/2024

Between:

   1. YENNI VENKATA RAMANA, S/O RAMULU, AGE 53 YEARS,
      WORKING AS TEACHER, R/O PLOT NO 91M GOVINDANAGAR
      COLONY, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT.

                                                               ...PETITIONER

                                     AND

   1. BOYANA RAMESH KUMAR, S/o Krishnamurthy, Age 54 years,
      Business, R/o LIG II, Section 25/1, APHB Colony, Opp ZP Office,
      Srikakulam Town and District.

                                                             ...RESPONDENT

     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 present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition
against the Order in LA. No 539 of 2024 in O.S No 385 of 2019 Dated
16.7.2024 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikakulam

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 Stay all further proceedings in O.S No 385 of 2019 on the file of
the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikakulam, pending disposal of
the CRP and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:
 Page 2 of 7                                                                         SRS,J
                                                                      C.R.P.No.2267of2024

     1. S SRINIVASA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent:

     1.

The Court made the following:

                                         ORDER

The defendant in the suit filed the above revision against the order

dated 16.07.2024 passed in I.A.No.539 of 2024 in O.S.No.385 of 2019 on the

file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikakulam.

2. Respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.385 of 2019 against the

petitioner/defendant for the recovery of the amount on the strength of

the promissory note, dated 27.10.2016.

3. The defendant filed a written statement and is contesting the suit.

4. Pending the suit, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.539 of 2024 under

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to send a promissory note, dated

27.10.2016 (Ex.A1) to the handwriting expert for comparison with the admitted

signatures. The said application was opposed by the respondent/plaintiff by

filing counter.

5. The trial Court, by order, dated 16.07.2024, dismissed the application.

6. Heard Sri K. Chennakesavulu, learned counsel representing Sri S.

Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner.

C.R.P.No.2267of2024

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court

ought to have allowed the application and sent Ex.A1 to the handwriting

expert for comparison of the signatures.

8. The point for consideration is:

Does the order of the trial Court suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?

9. As stated supra, the suit is filed to recover the amount on the strength

of the promissory note and the defendant pleaded forgery. Pending the suit,

the defendant, by filing the interlocutory application prayed the Court to send

Ex.A1-promissory note dated 27.10.2016 to a handwriting expert for

comparison with his admitted signatures. Except for pleading to send Ex.A1 to

the handwriting expert, no document containing the admitted signature was

filed along with the I.A., to send the same to the handwriting expert. No

purpose will be served by ordering such an application unless the person

praying the court for sending the document for expert, files the document

containing admitted signatures.

10. In Taidala Yesupadam and another vs. Burugu Sreenu1, it was held

that the party, who is making an application to send the document to an expert

to compare the signature, should assert and file authentic documents

containing his or her signatures along with I.A. and without making available

the admitted signatures, ordering interlocutory application, will not serve.

2023 (1) ALT 343 A.P.

C.R.P.No.2267of2024

11. In the case on hand, the defendant did not file any authentic documents

which contained his admitted signatures. The signature scribed in the open

court, vakalat, suit summons and written statement cannot be termed as

an admitted signature as there is every likelihood of the defendant disguising

the signature.

12. In Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy vs. Pratapa Reddy and another2 the

Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

"24. There is another reason why we are not inclined to place reliance on the opinion of the expert DW 2. From a perusal of his report, Ext. B-2, it is evident that barring the signature on a written statement in a prior suit, all other admitted signatures of the first defendant are of a period subsequent to the filing of the plaint (i.e. on the vakalatnama and the written statement filed in this suit itself). These admitted signatures taken subsequent to the filing of the suit could not have been used as a valid basis of comparison, and their use for this purpose casts serious doubt on the reliability of the entire report, Ext. B-2. Thus, the report was liable to be discarded on this ground alone, and was wrongly relied upon by the High Court."

13. In P. Padmanabhaiah vs. G. Srinivasa Rao3, learned Single Judge of

composite High Court held as under:

In the well considered view of this Court, the defendant's 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

2019 (14) SCC 220

2017 (2) ALD 368

C.R.P.No.2267of2024

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.

14. In Lakkapamula Rani vs. Manda Batasari4, A.P. High Court held as under:

"When there are no signatures of comparable and assured standard on record before trial Court, it is unsafe to obtain signatures of party in open Court and send said signatures and also his vakalat and Written Statement to expert for obtaining opinion."

15. Thus, given the expressions in the above judgments, the defendant who

is making an application to send the document to an expert to compare the

signature should assert and file authentic documents containing his/her

signatures along with I.A. Unless the defendant/s produce/s the document/s

containing authentic/admitted signatures, no purpose would be served by

allowing such an interlocutory application.

16. In the case at hand, as stated supra, the petitioner/defendant has not

produced any authentic document along with the application. The Trial Court

considered all these aspects and dismissed the application, by assigning valid

AIR 2022 AP 83

C.R.P.No.2267of2024

reasons. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the order of the