Allowed

Nune Siva Nageswara Rao v. Bapanapalli Gangadhar Rao

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Dec 2019CRP/3632/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition filed against an order permitting a handwriting comparison application. The revisioner argued the court erred in allowing the petition as no samples of admitted or contemporary signatures were produced by the defendant to compare with the disputed endorsements on a promissory note.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order allowing the petitioner to send the promissory note for handwriting expert comparison is set aside. Liberty is granted to the defendant to file a fresh petition along with required

Nune Siva Nageswara Rao Vs Bapanapalli… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶2

Civil Revision Petition No.3632 of 2019

¶3

Order :

¶4

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 02.08.2019 passed in IA No.322 of 2019 in OS No.263 of 2014 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

¶5

The parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

¶6

The plaintiff filed OS No.263 of 2014 against the defendant for recovery of amount due under the suit promissory note Ex.A1. The case of the defendant is that he discharged the entire amount to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff by forging his signatures created part payment endorsements on the back side of the promissory note for the purpose of limitation and filed the present suit. Hence, he filed IA No.322 of 2019 in OS No.263 of 2014 seeking to send Ex.A1 promissory note along with his admitted signatures and signatures on part payment endorsements to hand writing expert for comparison and opinion. The Court below, after considering the contentions of both the parties and the material on record, allowed the said petition. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶7

The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff is that the defendant did not produce any documents which contained his admitted and contemporary signatures for sending the same to the hand writing expert for comparison with the disputed signatures and in the absence of the same the Court below erred in allowing the petition.

¶8

A perusal of the record would show that the suit is of the year 2014 and though the defendant is disputing his signatures on the part payment

¶9

¶10

endorsements made on the back side of the suit promissory note he did not take any action for sending the same to the hand writing expert and when the suit is posted for arguments he filed the present petition. The Court below, by observing that since the defendant is disputing his signatures on Ex.A2 part payment endorsements, an opportunity has to be given to him to prove his case and it may not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff and allowed the petition.

¶11

Admittedly, the defendant did not file any admitted or contemporary signatures along with the petition. The rule of prudence requires the Court to send the admitted and contemporary signatures of the person to the expert to compare the same with his disputed signatures on the document. According to Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary “Contemporary” means belonging to the same or a stated period in the past. It is needless to say that admitted signatures means the signatures on the documents maintained by any authority in course of its business such as signatures on a passport, income-tax returns, bank passbook or registered sale deed. The Court below while allowing the petition directed the defendant to appear before the Court to give his admitted signatures so as to send the document along with admitted signatures for examination. The defendant in the written statement itself denied his signatures on the part payment endorsements. With the passage of time, the pattern of signatures keeps on changing. The suit promissory note is dated 03.07.2001 and the alleged part payment endorsements are dated 01.07.2004, 01.07.2007 and 01.07.2010. The defendant did not indicate the documents which contain the signatures of contemporary period.

¶12

In the circumstances, the CRP is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, liberty is given to the defendant to file fresh petition

¶13

¶14

along with the documents which contain his admitted and contemporary signatures for sending the same to the hand writing expert for comparison with his disputed signatures. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.

¶16

_____________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J.

¶17

Date: 06.12.2019 Nsr

¶18

¶19

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶20

Civil Revision Petition No.3632 of 2019

¶21

Date: 06.12.2019

¶22

Nsr

Nune Siva Nageswara Rao v. Bapanapalli Gangadhar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nune Siva Nageswara Rao v. Bapanapalli Gangadhar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Konakalla Reddimma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ariga Srinivasulu Vs Chakiri Dhanunjaya

Lingam Janarhanarao Vs Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P Ltd.

S. Subhash Yadav Produtturu Vs C Gangaiah

Krishna and Co. Vs Venkataeswar Reddy

Telaprolu Vikram Vs Nalluri Syam Kumar