Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Veeranki Veera Raghavulu vs Karanki Venkata Siva Prasad on 29 October, 2024
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
1
RRR, J
C.R.P.No.803/2024
APHC010127602024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3206]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 803/2024
Between:
Veeranki Veera Raghavulu and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Karanki Venkata Siva Prasad and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. M V S ANIL KUMAR R
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PILLIX LAW FIRM
The Court made the following Order:
The respondents herein had filed O.S.No.51 of 2010 before the Senior
Civil Judge, Repalle, for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated
24.02.1999 in relation to Ac.4.26 cents of land. This suit, which was initially
filed against two defendants, was resisted by them.
2. In the written statement, the defendants, while not disputing the
agreement of sale dated 24.02.1999, had pleaded that certain words had
been interpolated in the document and denied receipt of balance
RRR, J
consideration, apart from denying the acknowledgement of payment that is
said to have been executed by the defendants, on the back of the agreement
of sale.
3. Subsequently, an additional written statement was filed in which
the defendants contended that they remain in possession of the land and that
the plaintiffs therein had not approached the Court with clean hands.
4. The trial Court, decreed the suit. The trial Court, as no application
for comparison of the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures had
been filed, had compared the signatures disputed by the defendants with the
other admitted signatures available with the Court and had negatived the plea
of the defendants that the acknowledgements of debt etc., had been forged for
the purpose of extending limitation.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court,
dated04.04.2016, the defendants moved A.S.No.53 of 2016, before the XI
Additional District Judge, Tenali. As the 2nd appellant had passed away,
appellants 3 to 5 were impleaded as the legal representatives of the deceased
2nd appellant by way of order dated 18.08.2016.
6. The appellants, thereafter, moved I.A.No.512 of 2023 before the
appellate Court seeking expert opinion on the disputed signatures, after
comparison with admitted signatures by a handwriting expert.This application
was resisted by the respondents herein.
RRR, J
7. After hearing both sides, the appellate Court dismissed the
application for referring the disputed and admitted signatures and thumb
impressions of the appellants 1 and 2, under Section 45 of the Evidence Act,
by order dated 10.10.2023.
8. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners herein have filed the
present revision petition.
9. Sri M.V.S. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners would submit that the order of the appellate Court dismissing the
application is based solely on the ground of laches. He would submit that the
appellate Court did not go into the question of prejudice that would be caused
to the petitioners, if the application is not allowed. He would submit that there
is no dispute as to the execution of the agreement of sale, which is marked as
Ex.A.1. however, the other signatures acknowledging receipt of money at
various points of time and the thumb impressions made by the 2nd appellant,
are fabricated and have been made solely for the purpose of extending the
limitation that would be available for filing the suit. Sri Anil Kumar would draw
the attention of the Court to the fact that the agreement of sale is dated
24.02.1999 but the suit was filed only in the year 2010, which is beyond the
period of three years by any stretch of imagination.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand would
contend that the suit was filed in the year 2010 and the trial was completed in
the year 2016 and a decree had also been passed. Thereafter, the appeal
RRR, J
was filed in the year 2016. However, no application for referring the signatures
to a handwriting expert was made either during the pendency of the suit or
during the pendency of the appeal, till more than 7 years have elapsed from
the filing of the appeal itself. He would submit that the appellate Judge, taking
these facts into account, had rejected the application on the ground of laches.
He would also rely upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Perugu Rama Rao and Ors., vs.
PalaganiRatnakumari1.
11. In reply Sri M.V.S. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners
would rely upon a Full Bench judgment of the erstwhile High Court of
Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra
Pradesh, in Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad vs. Ravi Surya
Prakash Babu (died) per Lrs. And Ors.,2 to contend that an application for
referring the signatures to a handwriting expert can be moved at any stage
and it is only the question of whether the admitted and disputed signatures are
contemporaneous or not, that would be looked into by the Court.
12. The defense of the petitioners is the bar under the Limitation Act.
For this purpose, the petitioners contend that the suit, filed in 2010 for specific
performance of an agreement of sale executed in the year 1999, is clearly and
obviously barred by limitation. However, for the purpose of bringing the suit
within the limitation, the respondent fabricated and forged the signatures of
2008 (2) ALT 783 = 2008 (1) ALD 531
2016 (2) ALT 248 (F.B.)
RRR, J
petitioners 1 and 2, for the purpose of showing that payments of sale
consideration was being made periodically and accepted by the petitioners by
appending their signatures. In this way, the respondents, according to the
petitioners, sought to extend the limitation.
13. Sri M.V.S. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners while
assailing the finding of the appellate Court on laches, would contend that the
appeal had been dismissed for default in the year 2017 and was restored to
file only in the year 2022, after which the petitioners had moved the
application for sending the signatures to a handwriting expert. He would
submit that in such circumstances, the finding of the appellate Court that there
were laches on their part, cannot be accepted.
14. For the purpose of ascertaining the facts, this Court had required
the petitioners to produce the copies of the agreement of sale as well as the
signatures acknowledging payment of further sale consideration. Copies of
these documents and depositions, marked as exhibits in 'A' series, were
placed before this Court.
15. The 1st petitioner herein had been examined as DW.1 in the suit.
In the cross-examination, DW.1 while admitting his signatures on Ex.A.1-sale
agreement, denied all the other signatures, marked as Exs.A.2 to A.5. A
suggestion was also made to DW.1 that no steps were taken for sending the
disputed signatures and thumb impressions for examination to a Government
Expert as they were genuine signatures. Despite this suggestion, no steps
RRR, J
were taken by the petitioners to send the signatures for expert opinion. The
suit was decreed in the year 2016 and an appeal was filed immediately
thereafter by the petitioners herein. However, no steps were taken for filing an
application in this regard. The present application, seeking reference of the
signatures to a handwriting expert, was moved only in the year 2023, which is
more than 7 years from the date of filing of the appeal. This delay is sought to
be explained by stating that the appeal had been dismissed in the year 2016
itself and was not restored till the year 2022 due to which the petitioners were
unable to move the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. This
application, while explaining the delay for a part of the period, does not cover
the entire period of delay. It can be seen that even if such explanation was to
be accepted, there was a delay for a further period of one year before an
application came to be filed. Apart from this, one other aspect which needs to
be noticed is that the application was dismissed by the appellate Court on
10.10.2023. The revision petition was prepared and filed only on 11.03.2024.
This conduct of the petitioners does not inspire any confidence in their
contention that there was no delay on their part in filing the application before
the appellate Court or the present revision petition before this Court. In these
circumstances, this Court does not find any irregularity in the exercise of
discretion by the appellate Court.
RRR, J
16. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall stand closed.
_______________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J
Js.
RRR, J
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.803 of 2024
29th October, 2024
Js.
