Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Bandaru Venkata Rangarao At Ranga Babu vs Bandaru Vera Venkata Satyanarayana Rao on 4 October, 2024
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
APHC010201572024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3209]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:
N 969/2024
Between:
Bandaru Venkata Rangarao @ Ranga Babu ...PETITIONER
AND
Bandaru Veera
ra Venkata Satyanarayana Rao & ...RESPONDENTS
another
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. C.PANINI SOMAYAJI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.Mr.M.Sri Atchyut
NJS,J
CRP_969_2024
The Court made the following ORDER:
The petitioner who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.89 of 2013 on the file of
the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada, aggrieved by the
Order of dismissal dated 12.03.2024 in I.A.No.1146 of 2023 filed under
Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure(for short 'C.P.C.'), approached
this Court in the present Revision.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the
Order of the Trial Judge is erroneous and contrary to Law. He submits
that the petitioner filed the above mentioned suit for Specific Performance
of Agreement of Sale dated 22.07.2011(Ex.A1) and in the written
statement, the defendant had taken a plea that the Agreement is a rank
forgery. He submits that in order to prove the case of the petitioner,
comparison of signatures on Ex.A1 with original documents that are
contemporary to the date of execution of Ex.A1 is imperative. He submits
that as the 1st defendant filed a petition to send the Agreement of Sale for
expert opinion without filing the original documents containing the
contemporary signatures, the petitioner got issued a Notice under Order
12 Rule 8 of C.P.C., but the 1st respondent did not choose to produce the
same and as the comparison of signatures without producing the original
documents is not tenable and any opinion of the expert in the said
circumstances is not admissible, the petitioner filed the above I.A.,
seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to produce the contemporary
documents to enable the Court to send the same for comparison.
NJS,J
CRP_969_2024
3. He contends that without appreciating the matter in the correct
perspective, the learned Trial Judge went wrong in recording a finding
that certified copies of the documents were sent for comparison though
they are xerox copies. He submits that the original Gift Deed was
executed long prior to the Agreement of Sale and the same cannot be
treated as a contemporary document, that as the expert rendered opinion
on the basis of xerox / photostat copies of documents sent for comparison
of signatures without raising an objection, the petitioner is constrained to
file the above I.A. He submits that the learned Trial Judge without
appreciating the bonafides of the petitioner in filing the present petition, in
the facts and circumstances stated above, erred in opining that the
petition is filed with ulterior motive of prolonging the suit proceedings. He
submits that the learned Trial Judge had posted the matter 'for
pronouncement of judgment' and unless stay of all further proceedings as
prayed for is granted, the petitioner would suffer serious prejudice and
irreparable loss.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents made
submissions to sustain the order under challenge.
5. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the
material on record.
6. At the outset, it may be noted that in the affidavit filed in support of
the above mentioned I.A., the petitioner while seeking a direction to
NJS,J
CRP_969_2024
produce as many as six documents mentioned therein, for sending the
same for comparison with Ex.A1-Agreement of Sale, inter alia stated that
the contemporary signatures were not produced by the defendants and
as such, the opinion given by the Truth Labs, Hyderabad is not
admissible. A plea was also taken that the xerox copies cannot be sent
for comparison and after cross examination of the witness, he was
advised to send the Ex.A1-Sale Agreement for comparison with the
contemporary signatures of the 1st defendant. A counter-affidavit was filed
opposing the said I.A., inter alia stating that the evidence of hand writing
Expert i.e., Truth Labs, Hyderabad was recorded by the Advocate
Commissioner and the counsel for the petitioner had cross examined the
hand writing Expert extensively and nothing could be elicited. It is also
alleged that the petitioner only with a view to drag on the suit
proceedings, is filing petitions, which are devoid of merits.
7. The learned Trial Judge after considering the matter, passed the
Order under challenge by assigning reasons. As seen from the
observations made by the learned Trial Judge, the disputed Agreement of
Sale dated 22.07.2011, the Original Gift Deed dated 05.01.2001 and
certified copies of the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds were sent
to the Truth Labs, Hyderabad for comparison of signatures. As per the
Memo in I.A.No.294 of 2019, the petitioner himself sought to send the
said Gift Deed for compensation of signatures on Ex.A1. Subsequently, a
report was submitted by the said Lab and the hand writing expert was
NJS,J
CRP_969_2024
also subjected to cross examination by the petitioner. Admittedly, only
after cross examination of the hand writing expert, the petitioner filed the
application in question and no reasons are forthcoming as to why
objections were not raised, if really the xerox copies of the documents as
alleged by the petitioner were sent for comparison with signatures on
Ex.A1-Agreement of Sale. It appears as though, nothing could be elicited
in the cross examination and as opined by the learned Trial Court, the
intention of the petitioner is to prolong the proceedings. Be that as it may.
8. As the learned Trial Judge had already heard the matter and
reserved for judgment, this Court is not inclined to examine the matter
further and the petitioner may avail the remedies in Law, in the event of
visiting with an adverse judgment in the suit.
9. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications
pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
NINALA JAYASURYA, J
Date: 04.10.2024
BLV
NJS,J
CRP_969_2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
Date: 04.10.2024
BLV
