Vempati Radha vs Sk. Asif
2024 Latest Caselaw 4150 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 4150 Tel
Judgement Date : 22 October, 2024

Telangana High Court

Vempati Radha vs Sk. Asif on 22 October, 2024

         THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K.SUJANA

       CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2685 OF 2023

O R D E R:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendant

against the order dated 18.07.2023 in I.A.No.03 of 2023 in

O.S.No.202 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil

Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at

Kothagudem.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties

will be referred as per their array before the trial Court

3. The facts of the case are that the

plaintiff/respondent filed the suit against the defendant for

recovery of money. It is stated that having acquaintance

with the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.12,00,000/- for purchasing house by executing a

promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Despite several

remainders, the defendant failed to repay the borrowed

amount to the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff

filed a suit. Later, the defendant filed I.A.No. 03 of 2023

under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, seeking to

send the promissory note dated 10.12.2019 to the

handwriting expert for comparison with admitted signatures

of the defendant.

SKS,J

4. By the impugned order, the petition filed by the

defendant was dismissed as there are no contemporary

signatures to compare with the admitted signatures bearing

on Ex.A.1, promissory note.

5. Heard Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel

for the revision petitioner/defendant and Sri P.Rama

Sharana Sharma, learned counsel for the

respondent/plaintiff. Perused the material available on

record.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended

that the revision petitioner is ready to produce the

contemporary signatures that can be compared with the

admitted signatures of the revision petitioner bearing on

Ex.A.1, promissory note. He further contended that even if

there were contemporary signatures, the application under

Section 45 of the Act, can be entertained. In support of the

said contention, he placed reliance on the common order of

the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of

Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad v. Ravi Surya

Prakash Babu and others 1 and prayed the Court to allow

the revision petition.

2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 467

SKS,J

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent by placing reliance on the orders of the

Erstwhile High Court of Judicature, Telangana and Andhra

Pradesh at Hyderabad in the cases of M.Narsi Reddy v.

V.Raghu Ram Naidu and another 2 and Dintakurthi

Narayana v. Rachuru Bhaskar Rao 3, has contended that

in the absence of contemporary signatures, the trial Court

has rightly rejected the request of the defendant and the

same needs no interference by this Court. Further, after

arguing for some time, learned counsel expressed that the

plaintiff has no objection if the contemporary signatures are

produced before the trial Court to send them to the hand

writing expert for comparison with the admitted signatures

bearing on Ex.A.1, promissory note.

8. In the Case of Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa

(Supra), the Erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at

Paragraph No.3 held as under:

"3. In effect, the question referred for decision by the learned Judge was whether the Court would be barred from sending the disputed handwriting/signature to an expert if the time gap between the admitted signature and the disputed signature was very long. However, the reference order passed thereafter by the Division Bench, which led to the matter being placed before us, went a step further. Significantly, the very same learned Judge who had passed the order dated 13.08.2010

2015 (3) ALD 234

2017 (5) ALD 415

SKS,J

presided over the said Division Bench. It was brought to the notice of the Division Bench that another Division Bench of this Court had held in JANACHAITANYA HOUSING LIMITED V/s. DIVYA FINANCIERS that there can be no set time limit for filing an application for sending handwriting/signatures for comparison and expert opinion. This decision was interpreted by the Division Bench to mean that even if there were no contemporaneous signatures, an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity, the Act of 1872) could be moved. Referring to an earlier decision rendered by a learned Judge dating back to the year 1960 in ANNAPURNAMMA V/s. B.SANKARARAO , which held to the effect that a belated application would be of no avail if there was a lapse of time between the admitted signature and the disputed signature, the Division Bench opined that these two views needed to be reconciled, though they had no direct relation but had a bearing on the question referred to the Division Bench. This was the basis for the reference to a Full Bench."

(Emphasis Supplied)

A plain reading of the above makes it abundantly

clear that if the revision petitioner produces the

contemporary signatures to compare with the admitted

signatures, then the said petition can be allowed.

9. Having respectful agreement with the view taken by

the Erstwhile Andhra Pradesh High Court in the aforesaid

judgment and in view of the above consensus arrived

between the parties, without expressing any opinion on the

case, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order

dated 18.07.2023.

SKS,J