Jaladi Sathi Sulochana vs Koduri Raja Ravindra Babu
2024 Latest Caselaw 9946 AP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 9946 AP
Judgement Date : 6 November, 2024

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Jaladi Sathi Sulochana vs Koduri Raja Ravindra Babu on 6 November, 2024

 APHC010662782022
                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                     AT AMARAVATI                     [3460]
                              (Special Original Jurisdiction)

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

                                    PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

                      CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2568/2022

Between:

Jaladi Sathi Sulochana                                         ...PETITIONER

                                      AND

Koduri Raja Ravindra Babu                                     ...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Petitioner:

   1. INAKOLLU VENKATESWARLU

Counsel for the Respondent:

   1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI

The Court made the following:
                                       2




           THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

                CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2568/2022

ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the Order

dated 12.08.2022 in I.A.No.181 of 2022 in O.S.No.102 of 2016 passed by

the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

2. The Petitioner is the Defendant. A suit was filed by the respondent for

recovery of money under a promissory note said to have been executed by

the Petitioner/Defendant. In the Written Statement, the Petitioner raised a

plea that the suit promissory note was a created one and that she did not

sign on the promissory note. After the evidence of PW.1, it is stated that

the present application was filed by the Petitioner to send the suit

promissory note for comparison with Vakalat, Written Statement,

Acknowledgment and Pension Hand Book to handwriting expert for

comparison of the signatures. The said application was dismissed and

hence, the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. Heard Sri Inakollu Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the Petitioner

and Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the Respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the trial Court ought

to have sent the suit promissory note to expert for comparison with the

Pension Hand Book, which is being maintained by the Petitioner since

2014. The counsel for the Petitioner also pointed that the portion of the

evidence of PW.1 wherein it was stated that the Plaintiff does not have any

objection for sending Ex.A.1-Promissory Note for comparison of the

signatures.

5. Learned counsel for the Respondent contended that they do not

have any objection for sending the suit promissory note to expert for

opinion, but, he contended that the Order of the trial Court cannot be faulted

with as the comparable signatures are of doubtful nature and cannot be

relied upon, and therefore, the Order of the trial Court does not warrant any

interference.

6. To extent of comparison with Vakalat, Written Statement and

Acknowledgment, the trial Court had referred to a Judgment of this Court

reported in Byalla Devadas v Sivapuram Rama Yogeswara Rao1 wherein

it was held that the documents, which are of doubtful nature, should not be

sent for comparison to the expert. A similar view was taken by Hon'ble

2022 Live Law (AP) 53,

Supreme Court in Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy Vs Baddam Pratapa Reddy

2019 (14) SCC 220. The relevant portion of the order is as under;

"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."

7. The only issue that falls for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is

whether the suit promissory note can be compared with the Pension Hand

Book. A copy of the Pension Hand Book is filed along with the Civil Revision

Petition. On perusal of the signature of the Petitioner on that Pension

Handbook shows that the same is not a very reliable document as it is being

maintained for the purpose of acknowledgement of the amount being paid by

the authorities every month. Therefore, the Order of the trial Court is not

warranting any interference.

8. As there is no objection to send the document for expert by Plaintiff/PW.1

himself, the petitioner is given liberty to file appropriate contemporary

document having the signature of the Petitioner for sending the same to

expert opinion within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a