Mr.N.Narasimha Chary vs Sri Alopi Shankar Tiwari Died
2024 Latest Caselaw 442 Tel

Telangana High Court

Mr.N.Narasimha Chary vs Sri Alopi Shankar Tiwari Died on 2 February, 2024

Author: P. Sam Koshy

Bench: P. Sam Koshy

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY

 CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3780 and 3782 of 2023


COMMON ORDER:

The grounds raised to challenge the impugned orders in the

two Civil Revision Petitions being common, and the facts also being

common, they are heard together and decided by this common

order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

3. For convenience, the facts in Civil Revision Petition No.3780

of 2023 are taken up as the lead case. The parties hereinafter shall

be referred to as they are arrayed before the Court below.

4. Civil Revision Petition No.3780 of 2023 has been filed under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners assailing

the impugned order dated 26.09.2023 passed by the Court of the

Hon'ble XVIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad (for short, 'Court below') in I.A.No.174 of 2023,

I.A.No.175 of 2023 and I.A.No.176 of 2023 in O.S.No.1753 of 2005.

5. I.A.No.174 of 2023 was filed under Section 45 of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking for a

direction to the defendant No.4 to furnish handwriting samples so ::2::

as to get the same examined before the State Forensic and Central

Forensic Laboratories or any other laboratories with the

handwriting in the Exhibit A-29 and A-21.

6. I.A.No.174 of 2023 was filed under the same provisions

seeking for a direction to the defendant No.4 to provide for a voice

sample of his speech to compare with certain conversations that

are available with the plaintiffs.

7. Similarly, I.A.No.175 of 2023 was filed again under the same

provisions seeking for a direction to the defendant No.4 to provide

sample signatures for comparison with the signatures in the

Exhibit A-29 and A-21. It is these applications which stand

dismissed by the Court below leading to filing of the present Civil

Revision Petition.

8. The plaintiffs had filed a Suit for specific performance of

agreement of sale and for perpetual injunction in the year 2005.

Pending the Suit since the year 2005, the present three I.A's have

now been filed for the purposes already reflected in the preceding

paragraphs. It was these three I.A's which stands rejected by the

Court below vide the said impugned order dated 26.09.2023.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

impugned order is bad to the extent that the substantive right of ::3::

the petitioners stands denied so far as proving their case before

the Court below.

10. The grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners

was that the Court below failed to take into consideration the fact

that Exhibit A-29 Sale Deed is of the year 1985 and the receipt

and promissory notes already exhibited are of the

contemporaneous period of 1984 & 1985 and the request made by

the plaintiffs is a comparison of signatures in these two documents

by obtaining a full signature of the respondent/defendant No.4

only for confirmation that the signatures are of the same person.

The Court below failed to appreciate this fact. The Court below

misapplied the rulings in AIR 2005 AP 180 as well as 2019 (14)

SCC 220.

11. Further that the Court below ought to have seen that it is

the duty of the Court to compare the signatures and come to a

conclusion as to whether the signatures are of the same person.

The opinion of a handwriting expert is considered as a conclusive

proof for such a fact. However it is an accepted principle of law

that an expert opinion will assist the Court in analyzing that fact

before coming to a conclusion for just and proper conclusion of the

issue and hence the Court below ought not to have refused to take

services of such useful scientific technology by passing appropriate

orders to confirm the truth.

::4::

12. It was also contended that the approach and analysis of the

Court below is contrary to law and is not inclined to see valuable

evidence and decide the issues in the Suit conclusively in a proper

adjudication by not allowing proper evidence to go out of cite of

Hon'ble Court.

13. Further the Court below failed to note that the basic quality

of all the three aspects of handwriting, signature, and voice

remains the same with minor variations and hence can be

identified by scientific analysis and even any mimicry can be

recognized by the scientific analysis so that the Court below failed

to appreciate three aspects and refused to give assistance of

technological expertise to establish before the Court conclusively

the facts of the case.

14. The contention also was that the Court below failed to see

that no prejudice would have been caused to the defendant

No.4/DW-1 by sending the signature sample, voice samples,

handwriting sample and in fact if the statement of the DW-1 were

to be true the truth would have been vindicated and his defense

would have been established.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his

contentions relied upon the following decisions:

::5::

i. Doosi Rama Rao Vs. Puttutu Munirathnam Reddy 1 ii. Chidella Venkateswarlu Vs. Gurram Pushpa Latha 2 iii. Dasari Lingaiah Vs. Thatikonda Venugopal Reddy 3 iv. Mudi Reddy Tirupathi Reddy Vs. T. Linga Reddy and another 4 v. Bande Siva Shankara Srinivas Prasad Vs. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu 5 vi. Shaik Hussain Basha Vs. Shaik Anwar Hussain 6 vii. Aaluri Mogulaiah Vs. Burra Aruna 7 viii. Katike Bheem Shankar Vs. T.Laxmi 8

16. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand

opposing the Civil Revision Petition submitted that the Suit was

filed in the year 2005. At that point of time itself the age of the

defendants was quite advanced. Now by way of the handwriting

sample, voice sample and signatures, the plaintiffs intends to get a

document that was executed of the year 1984 compared with the

present day sample. This in other words means that the petitioners

seeks to compare the present age signature, the voice sample and

the handwriting of the petitioners with a document that was

executed almost forty (40) years back and with which the

1 CDJ 2023 APHC 651

2 2012 (4) ALT 45

3 2015 (5) 492 4 2015 (6) ALT 512 5 2016 (2) ALT 248 6 CDJ 2020 APHC 367 7 2012 (2) ALT 19 8 2023 (3) ALT 437 ::6::

petitioners seeks to prove their case, which at this stage after so

long a period should not be permitted.

17. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the

respondents that the three I.A's have already been moved at a

much belated stage where substantial evidences have already been

recorded. Therefore, it should not be permitted at this juncture

and that the intention of filing of the said I.A's was to protract the

proceedings. For all the aforesaid reasons, the learned counsel for

the respondents prayed for rejection of the Civil Revision Petition.

18. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on

perusal of records, what is paramount at this juncture, is to take

note of the fact that the present Civil Revision Petition is filed

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the scope of

judicial review under Article 227 to an order passed by the Court

below is to minimal. It is settled position of law that while

exercising the power under Article 227, the High Court has to

particularly consider as to whether there is any jurisdictional error

committed by the Court below in the course of deciding the case.

Secondly, it needs to be considered whether there is any perversity

in the findings given by the Court below and lastly, whether there

is any excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Court below while ::7::

passing the impugned order. In the instant case, the petitioners

have not assailed the impugned order on any of these grounds.

19. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is

that the samples of the handwriting, voice as also the signatures

are most essential for proving their case. But what needs to be

appreciated is the fact that there is a huge gap of time that has

passed for the purpose of comparison of the present handwriting,

voice as also the signatures of the defendants with the documents

that were executed almost forty (40) years back in 1984. In the

said context, if the Court below has reached to the conclusion that

the said reliefs sought for is at much belated stage and with huge

gap between the two periods i.e. the time at which the documents

were executed and the present time and age of the defendants, it is

not justified for the plaintiffs to have moved such I.A's at this

juncture with the aforesaid reliefs. The findings given by the Court

below while rejecting the three I.A's on the plain reading itself is

quite convincing and justified.

20. Another aspect which needs to be looked into is the fact that

the document which needs to be established were that of the year

1984-85. The Suit was filed in the year 2005 i.e. after twenty (20)

years and the I.A's have been filed in the year 2023 i.e. after

fourteen (14) years. Many changes must have definitely happened

by efflux of time on the physical conditions so far as the ::8::

defendants are concerned. If that is borne in mind, the findings of

the Court below cannot be found fault with.

21. The judgments which have been relied upon by the learned

counsel for the petitioners have all been decided in an entirely

different contextual backdrop, unlike in the present case.

Therefore, they are quite distinguishable on facts itself.

22. In view of the aforesaid factual backdrop of the case, this

Court does not find any illegality on the part of the Court below

while deciding the three I.A's. Accordingly, the two Civil Revision

Petitions therefore being devoid of merits, deserves to be and are

accordingly, rejected. No order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall

stand closed.

__________________ P. SAM KOSHY, J

Date: 02.02.2024 GSD