Gaddam Laxminarsaiah vs Vallala Saraswathi
2023 Latest Caselaw 754 Tel

       HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

              Civil Revision Petition No.406 of 2023
ORDER:

Challenging the order dated 06.12.2022 passed in

I.A.No.702 of 2022 in O.S.No.11 of 2017 by the learned Chairman,

Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge,

Hanumankonda, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the

petitioner.

2. Heard the arguments of Sri Veera Babu Gandu, learned

counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 and Sri K. Venumadhav,

learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that suit

promissory note is a forged document and therefore, the petitioner

has filed an Interlocutory Application seeking to send the said

document to a handwriting Expert but the trial Court without

taking into consideration the provisions of Indian Evidence Act,

1872, has in a mechanical manner dismissed the Interlocutory

Application filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel has stated that

once the signature on the suit document is disputed by the party,

the same ought to have been sent to a handwriting Expert and

basing on the report of the handwriting Expert, the issue can be

decided by the Trial Court instead of conducting a full-fledged trial.

To buttress his case, the learned counsel relied upon the following

judgments:

1) Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal1

2) N. Chinnaswamy v. PS Swaminathan2

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1

vehemently opposed the maintainability of the present Civil

Revision Petition stating that the document which is sought to be

sent to the Handwriting Expert is an incomplete document and the

trial Court rightly took the said fact into consideration and rightly

dismissed the I.A filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for

the respondent No.1 further stated that the suit is still at the stage

of trial and the evidence of parties is yet to be adduced and that

the I.A filed by the petitioner is premature one and therefore, the

learned counsel prayed this Hon'ble Court to dismiss the present

Civil Revision Petition.

5. In view of the above rival submissions, the point that arises

for determination in this C.R.P is:

"Whether there are merits in this Civil Revision Petition to allow, as prayed for?"

AIR 2008 SC 1541

2006 (4) CT 850

6. POINT: A perusal of the order dated 06.12.2022 passed in

I.A.No.702 of 2022 in O.S.No.11 of 2017 by the trial Court shows

that the trial Court duly taking into consideration that Ex.A.1-

promissory note does not contain the full signature of the

executant but only a partial signature is there. It is stated that the

signature of the executant was signed across three Revenue

Stamps but two of the adhesive revenue stamps had fallen off and

therefore, a part of the signature on one revenue stamp is

available. That the Trial Court duly taking into account the said

fact was of the opinion that part signature on Ex.A.1-promissory

note cannot be compared with the full signature of defendant No.1

as it is not a whole signature. Even though the petitioner/

defendant No.1 has taken a specific stand that the signature

contained in the promissory note is not his signature and unless

and until the same is sent to the Expert opinion, the truth or

otherwise of the claim made by the respondent No.1/plaintiff

cannot be ascertained.

7. In Thiruvengada Pillai's case (1 supra), relied upon by the

learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Apex Court

observed that when the defendant denies his signature in a

document, which is sought to be relied upon by the plaintiff in the

suit, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant had

executed the said document and the burden is not on the

defendant to prove the negative.

8. In N. Chinnaswamy's case (2 supra), relied upon by the

learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Single Judge of

Madras High Court observed that when the defendant denies the

signature in a particular document which is very much relied on by

the plaintiff, it is for the plaintiff to take steps for examination of

the disputed signature by sending the document to a handwriting

expert.

9. There is no demur with regard to the above preposition of

law. In the instant case, the petitioner/defendant No.1 has filed

the Interlocutory Application to send Ex.A.1-promissory note to the

expert opinion but not the respondent No.1/plaintiff. The burden is

on the plaintiff to prove his case and therefore, the said decisions

are not helpful to the case of the petitioner/defendant No.1.

Admittedly, in the present case, the suit is at the nascent stage

i.e, only evidence of plaintiff is let in. It is for the plaintiff to prove

his case by leading cogent and convincing evidence. This Court is

of the opinion that application filed by the petitioner is a

misconceived and premature one. Moreover, as rightly held by the

trial Court, the signature on Ex.A.1-promissory note is only half

signature and the same cannot be compared with the admitted

signature of the petitioner/defendant No.1. In view of the above

circumstances, the reasons given by the Trial Court cannot be

found fault with and therefore, this Court is not inclined to set

aside the impugned order dated 06.12.2022 passed in I.A.No.702

of 2022 in O.S.No.11 of 2017. However, liberty is granted to the

petitioner to file an application fresh if he is so advised, after the

trial is completed.

10. With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition is

disposed of.

The miscellaneous applications pending if any shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date: 13.02.2023 scs