Dismissed

Smt.Buridi Krishnaveni v. Mudunnuru Bhavani

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Dec 2021CRP/1305/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's refusal to admit handwriting comparison evidence in a money recovery suit, finding no infirmity in the order allowing the petitioner to submit signatures for comparison directly.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was dismissed. Additionally, pending miscellaneous applications stand closed.

Smt.Buridi Krishnaveni Vs Mudunnuru… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1305 of 2021

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.1669 of 2015 in the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for recovery of money based on a promissory note. The petitioner herein, in her written statement, denied her signature on the said promissory note. Thereafter, trial had been conducted and the matter is coming up for arguments. At that stage, I.A.No.221 of 2020 was filed by the petitioner to send the signature on the promissory note for comparing it with her other admitted signatures to an Handwriting Expert. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on 09.04.2021 on the ground that the said application is belated and the expert opinion alone is not deciding factor in finding out whether the signature is genuine or not.

¶4

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition before this Court.

¶5

I have perused the order as well as the material placed before this Court by Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶6

I did not find any infirmity in the said order that requires any interference by this Court.

¶7

The trial Court has observed that “The opinion of the expert is substantial evidence and expert opinion alone is not deciding the factor in finding out the genuineness of the promissory note”. This observation clearly leaves it open to the petitioner to place the

¶8

¶9

signature on the promissory note with any admitted signatures of hers for comparison by the trial Court itself. This course of action in any event is available to the petitioner even without any observation from the trial Court.

¶10

In the circumstances, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above observation. There shall be no orders as to costs.

¶11

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶12

stand closed.

¶13

_________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶14

Date: 08.12.2021

¶15

Note: C.C.by today. (B/o.)

¶16

SPP

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶19

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1305 of 2021

¶20

Date: 08.12.2021

¶21

Note: C.C.by today. (B/o.) SPP

Smt.Buridi Krishnaveni v. Mudunnuru Bhavani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Buridi Krishnaveni v. Mudunnuru Bhavani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thota Nancharaiah, Krishna Dist Vs Kotti Venkateswara Rao, Krishna Dist

Pratap Chaganlal Vs Vikramjethalaljoisher

Challapalli Chandrasekhar Vs Chintanippu Nageshwar Reddy and Another

Kuraganti Chenna Rao Vs Kuraganti Yesobu

Konala Padmavathi Vs Dwarampudi Kasamma (Died) and 3 Others

M.Murthaiah Vs Vajje Subbalakshmi