Pasala Ruben vs Bandanadam Arogyam
2021 Latest Caselaw 609 Tel

       THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER


         CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.171 of 2021

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition, Under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/defendant,

challenging the order, dated 15.12.2020, passed in I.A.No.324 of

2019 in O.S.No.60 of 2014 by the Senior Civil Judge at

Suryapet, whereby, the subject interlocutory application filed by

the petitioner/defendant under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act

to send Ex.A.1-original promissory note along with the admitted

signatures of the petitioner/defendant to the handwriting expert

for comparison and report, was dismissed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and

perused the record. In spite of service of notice, there is no

representation for the sole respondent/plaintiff.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant would

submit that comparison of signatures of the petitioner/defendant

on Ex.A.1 promissory note and his admitted signatures is

necessary to reach at a just conclusion. The Court below

erroneously dismissed the subject interlocutory application

without there being any justification. The petitioner/defendant

had denied his signature on Ex.A.1 promissory note by filing

written statement. Though there is sufficient and justifiable

cause to allow the subject interlocutory application as prayed

for, the Court below erroneously dismissed the same and Dr.SA, J

ultimately prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition as prayed

for.

4. As seen from the material placed on record, Ex.A.1

promissory note is said to have been executed on 09.12.2012 by

the petitioner/defendant in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.

The Original Suit in O.S.No.60 of 2014 was filed in the year 2014

and issues were framed in the year 2017. Plaintiff's side

evidence was completed on 07.06.2018 and the defendant's

counsel reported no further evidence on 15.03.2019 and as

such, the trial of the suit concluded and the matter was posted

for arguments. At this stage, the petitioner/defendant has filed

the subject interlocutory application to send Ex.A.1 promissory

note along with his admitted signatures to the handwriting

expert for comparison and report. There is no proper

explanation from the petitioner/defendant for not filing the

subject interlocutory application at an earlier point of time. The

Court below, while determining the subject interlocutory

application, observed that the petitioner/defendant was not

diligent and the subject interlocutory application was filed

belatedly. Further, the Court below relied on a judgment

reported in T.Venkatswamy Vs. Agiru Pullaiah {2012 (6) ALD

520}, wherein, it was held that naturally, delay in filing an

application for expert opinion is a good ground for rejection of

the same, unless the delay is properly explained. This Court

does not find any fault in the findings recorded by the Court

below. Further, the Court below contemplated to examine the

disputed signature under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. It is Dr.SA, J

culled out from the record that the subject interlocutory

application was filed belatedly, particularly when the subject suit

is coming up for arguments before the Court below. Under these

circumstances, there is nothing to interfere with the order under

challenge. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is

liable to be dismissed.

5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No

costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil

Revision Petition shall stand closed.

____________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J February 26, 2021 Bvv