Allowed

G Jayalakshmi v. M Bharathi

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Dec 2022CRP/1306/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition allowed an application to send a disputed promissory note to a forensic laboratory to determine if a specific figure was materially altered, imposing a condition on the applicant to deposit the alleged original loan amount.

What did the court decide?

Order allowing I.A. No.165 of 2020 to send document to Government Forensic Laboratory on condition that applicant deposits Rs.1,00,000 within two months.

G Jayalakshmi Vs M Bharathi — Execution and Attachment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

¶2

C.R.P. No.1306 of 2020

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 09-11-2020 dismissing I.A.No.165 of 2020 in O.S.No.55 of 2014 on the file of the Court of XI Additional District Judge, Tirupati filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act r/w Order XXVI Rule 10-A of CPC r/w Section 151 of CPC to send the suit promissory note Ex.A1 to an expert for determining the material alteration of figure ‘1’ in the amount shown as Rs.11,00,000/- on the top left side of Ex.A1 suit promissory note.

¶5

The revision petitioner is the petitioner/defendant. The respondent is the respondent/plaintiff.

¶6

The plaintiff filed suit for recovery of the amount of Rs.12,70,133/- basing on a promissory note executed by the defendant borrowing allegedly Rs.11,00,000/- on 11.07.2013 agreeing to repay the same with monthly interest of 2%. The defendant filed written statement denying the said claim stating that she borrowed amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on

¶7

¶8

BSB,J C.R.P.No.1306 of 2020

¶9

11.07.2013 and executed Ex.A1, but pleading that the defendant borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on different dates and gave blank signed promissory notes in the year 2011 and paid upto date interest @ 48% P.A. on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- till filing of the suit. She further pleaded that the plaintiff joined hands with N.Chandra Mouli Reddy of Kothakalva village and A.Ruma Reddy, Marrimanda village and created false propaganda against the defendant. With regard to the suit promissory note, the defendant admitted her signature on Ex.A1 the suit promissory note, but stated that amount of Rs.1,00,000/noted on the top of the promissory note was altered as Rs.11,00,000/- and thus pleaded material alteration in the suit promissory note.

¶10

At the stage of arguments, the defendant filed the petition seeking opinion of the expert on the material alteration. Petition was opposed by the respondent/plaintiff that it was filed at a belated stage after lapse of eight years of filing of the suit and also that the defendant filed Insolvency Petition and admitted her signature on the suit promissory note also, but the petition was filed only to protract the litigation.

¶11

¶12

BSB,J C.R.P.No.1306 of 2020

¶13

After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition with the observation that the holder in due course of Negotiable Instruments Act can make it complete, if given in blank and thus the trial Court felt no need to seek the expert’s opinion.

¶14

Having aggrieved by the order, the petitioner/defendant filed this revision that the trial Court erroneously dismissed the petition inspite of the plea taken by the defendant in the written statement with regard to the material alteration. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, though there is some delay on the part of petitioner in seeking the relief, the same cannot be rejected merely on the ground of delay, when it is just and necessary to get the opinion of an expert for complete adjudication of the matter in dispute.

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the petition submitting that the trial Court has given valid reasons to dismiss the petition and further that there is inordinate delay in filing the petition. He further added that the petition was filed after submitting written arguments.

¶16

¶17

BSB,J C.R.P.No.1306 of 2020

¶18

This Court perused the disputed document and also the contentions raised by both parties. Of course, the defendant asked the trial Court the relief at a fag end of the proceedings, but for a just cause of seeking opinion of an expert on a very material aspect involved in the main issue in the suit. According to the defendant, she borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- and incorporated the same figure on the top of the promissory note and signed on the rest of the blank promissory note, but the plaintiff altered the promissory note materially by changing Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.11,00,000/- and completed the remaining blank portion in such signed promissory note. The defendant further contended that she has been regularly paying the interests on the amount borrowed till filing of the suit. Thus, she admits not only her signature on the promissory note, but also receiving certain amount and not discharging the principal amount. In the trial, the Court is required to examine whether the plaintiff borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- or Rs.11,00,000/- under Ex.A1. In this regard, it is very pertinent to seek the opinion of an expert to know whether number ‘1’ is added before the figures ‘1,00,000/-’ on the top of Ex.A1 the promissory note, subsequent to writing the figures ‘1,00,000/-’ and whether the figure ‘1’ and the following figures ‘1,00,000/- were

¶19

¶20

BSB,J C.R.P.No.1306 of 2020

¶21

written by one and the same person and at the same time or not, since this exercise cannot be done by Court which is not equipped with any technical tools to take a correct decision.

¶22

Just because the petitioner approached with so much of delay, the necessary relief cannot be rejected. While granting the relief, some terms can be imposed to compensate to the inconvenience caused to the plaintiff. In view of the admission of the defendant that she borrowed Rs.1,00,000/and the principal amount has not been so far discharged, the petitioner/defendant can be directed to deposit the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/with liberty to the respondent/plaintiff to withdraw the same and contest the suit for the remaining liability.

¶23

In the result, the revision petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 09-11-2020 in I.A.No.165 of 2020 in O.S.55 of 2014 on the file of the Court of X Additional District Judge, Tirupati and allowing I.A.No.165 of 2020 on the condition that the revision petition/petitioner/defendant shall deposit Rs.1,00,000/with two months from the date of this order, failing which the petition stands dismissed. On compliance of the condition,

¶24

¶25

BSB,J C.R.P.No.1306 of 2020

¶26

the trial Court is directed to send the disputed document Ex.A1 to the Government Forensic Laboratory to examine the disputed first figure ‘1’ in the figures ‘11,00,000/-’ on the left top corner of Ex.A1, to determine whether number ‘1’ is added before the figures ‘1,00,000/-’ on the top of Ex.A1 the promissory note, subsequent to writing the figures ‘1,00,000/-’ and whether the figure ‘1’ and the following figures ‘1,00,000/- were written by one and the same person and at the same time or not. The trial Court may further direct the expert to submit the report as early as possible by indicating reasonable time and thereafter dispose of the suit expeditiously without any further delay.

¶27

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶29

___________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

¶30

Date : 15-12-2022 SAB

¶31

Note : C.C. by 21-12-2022 B/o SAB

¶32

¶33

BSB,J C.R.P.No.1306 of 2020

¶34

THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

¶35

C.R.P. No.1306 of 2020

¶36

Dt.15.12.2022

¶37

SAB

G Jayalakshmi v. M Bharathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Jayalakshmi v. M Bharathi

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

Grosu Muralikrishna Vs Bijigam Siva Sankar

Manepalli Anjaneyulu Vs Gudavalli Lakshmi Parvathi

Kanumuri Sarojini Devi Vs Kanumuri Anuradha Nagamani

M.R.Pradeep Kumar Vs S.Nanda Kishore

Devalla Veera Venkata Ravi Kumar, Vs M/s Kapil Chits (Kosta) Pvt.

Guthulu Nirmala Devi Vs Pithani Lakshmi Devi