Telangana High Court
Pingili Ramadevi vs Bere Vijaya on 19 September, 2023
Bench: G.Radha Rani
1
Dr.GRR, J
crp_2080_2023
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2080 of 2023
O R D E R:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner - defendant
aggrieved by the order dated 01.06.2023 in I.A.No.99 of 2023 in O.S.No.104 of
2015 on the file of the Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal - cum -
I Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda.
2. The respondent - plaintiff filed O.S.No.104 of 2015 for recovery of
money of Rs.25,25,752/- on the basis of three (03) promissory notes said to
have been executed on three different dates, on 18.08.2012 for Rs.5,00,000/-, on
28.09.2012 for Rs.5,00,000/- and on 17.12.2012 for Rs.5,00,000/-.
3. The petitioner - defendant contested the suit refuting the said allegations.
The petitioner - defendant contended that she had not received any amounts
mentioned in the promissory notes, the writings in the promissory notes did not
belong to her. There were no money transactions on 18.08.2012, 28.09.2012
and on 17.12.2012. The plaintiff used to run chits. At the time of lifting the
chits, the plaintiff had taken blank promissory notes as security and even after
completion of the said chits, had not returned them and was harassing her, as
such, she filed O.S.No.894 of 2014 on the file of the VII Additional Junior Civil
Dr.GRR, J
crp_2080_2023
Judge, Warangal seeking perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff and her
son-in-law not to interfere in her day to day life. As a counter blast, the
defendant No.1 therein who is the plaintiff herein filed the present suit.
4. The respondent - plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and got marked the
three promissory notes as Exs.A1 to A3. The respondent - plaintiff was
subjected to cross-examination and it was alleged that she reported no objection
to send Exs.A1 to A3 to expert for comparison of writings.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 45 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of CPC to send the documents
Exs.A1 to A3 to expert for obtaining the opinion of the expert whether the
contents of Exs.A1 to A3 were in different hand writing and were written by a
different pen and if possible to also ascertain the age of the writings. The said
petition was opposed by the respondent - plaintiff.
6. The trial court vide impugned order dismissed the said petition holding
that in the written statement, the defendant had not pleaded that the writings in
Exs.A1 to A3 did not belong to her and also the ink was different and it was not
possible to ascertain the age of the writings. Without pleadings, the petition
was not maintainable and dismissed the same.
7. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the defendant preferred this revision
contending that the defendant in her written statement strongly denied that the
Dr.GRR, J
crp_2080_2023
suit of the plaintiff was false, frivolous and fictitious and contended that she
never executed the documents Exs.A1 to A3 and not received the loan amounts
from the plaintiff. No prejudice would be caused to the respondent - plaintiff if
the documents were sent to the hand writing expert. It would have established
the truth of contentions of both the parties. The trial court should have ordered
to send the documents to hand writing expert for better adjudication of the suit
and prayed to set aside the order of the trial court in I.A.No.99 of 2023 in
O.S.No.104 of 2015 dated 01.06.2023.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner - defendant and the learned
counsel for the respondent - plaintiff.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the burden would lie
on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant had executed the promissory notes.
When the defendant denied the signatures, it was for the plaintiff to take steps
for examination of the disputed writings by sending the documents to a hand
writing expert. Even though, the plaintiff had not sought for sending the
documents to the expert, the petitioner - defendant herself filed a petition to
send documents to an expert and relied upon the judgment of the High Court of
Madras in K.R.Chinnasamy v. K.R.Chinnasamy 1, wherein it was held that:
"When the defendant denies the signature in a
particular document which is very much relied
2011 (2) MWN (Civil) 637
Dr.GRR, J
crp_2080_2023
on by the plaintiff, it is for the plaintiff to take
steps for examination of the disputed signature
by sending the document to a hand writing
expert".
10. The learned counsel for the respondent - plaintiff on the other hand
supported the order of the trial court.
11. On a perusal of the record in the written statement filed by the defendant
in O.S.No.104 of 2015, the defendant specifically pleaded that she had not
received the amounts mentioned in the promissory notes and that the writings in
the promissory notes did not belong to her and that the promissory notes were
obtained at the time of chit transactions and there were no money transactions
on 18.08.2012, 28.09.2012 and 17.12.2012 and she was not due any amount to
the plaintiff.
12. When there were specific pleadings with regard to denial of the amounts
received in the promissory notes and that the writings in the promissory notes
did not belong to her and in the cross-examination of PW.1 , she also reported
no objection to send the disputed promissory notes to an expert for comparison
of writings, the trial court committed an error in stating that the defendant had
not pleaded that the writings in Exs.A1 to A3 do not belong to her.
13. In the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
Madras High Court also by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Dr.GRR, J
crp_2080_2023
Court in Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal [AIR 2008 SC 1541], held
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".
14. Though burden would lie on the plaintiff to take steps for examination of
the disputed writings by sending the documents to a hand writing expert, when
the defendant herself filed the petition to send the documents to an expert for
comparison of writings contending that the contents of the promissory notes
were not written by her, the expert opinion would have given clarity for arriving
at a decision upon the truth and genuineness of the contentions of both the
parties. The trial court ought to have allowed the petition for sending the
documents to an expert as the opinion of the expert would have a bearing on the
findings in the suit.
15. Hence, it is considered fit to set aside the order of the trial court in
I.A.No.99 of 2023 in O.S.No.104 of 2015 dated 01.06.2023 directing the trial
court to send the documents (Exs.A1 to A3) to an expert for opinion.
16. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order
of the trial court in I.A.No.99 of 2023 in O.S.No.104 of 2015 directing the trial
Dr.GRR, J
crp_2080_2023
court to send the documents (Exs.A1 to A3) to a hand writing expert for his
opinion. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions in this Civil Revision Petition, if
any, shall stand closed.
____________________
Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J
Date: 19th September, 2023
Nsk.
