Dismissed

Yerubandi Venkata Ramana Murthy v. Eli Arun Kumar

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Jul 2023CRP/1653/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's refusal to appoint an advocate-commissioner to record expert evidence on disputed signatures in a suit filed under the Specific Relief Act. The court held that filing the petition at the final stage of the trial amounted to laches and unnecessary delay. Furthermore, since the prior expert report—which favored the peti

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed at the admission stage. No costs awarded.

Yerubandi Venkata Ramana Murthy Vs Eli Arun… — Execution and Attachment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ::^AMARAVATI

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1653 OF 2023

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 19.06.2023 in I.A.No.339 of 2023 in O.S.No.148 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Yerubandi Venkata Ramana Murthy, S/o. Bhaskara Rama Murthy, Aged about 61 years, Cultivation, Rio. Edarada Mamidikuduru Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶9

...Petitioner/Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

Eli Arun Kumar, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 40 years, R/o. Kadiapulanka, Kadiyam Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶12

Eli Hara Gopal, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 38 years, R/o. Kadiyapulanka, Kadiyam Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶13

Pappula Brahmaji Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged about 48 years, Property, Narasapuram, West Godavari District

¶14

... Respondents/Respondents

¶15

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to Grant Interim Stay of all further proceedings of the suit in O.S.No.148 of 2013 of the court of the Principal District Judge East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P RAJESH BABU

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: NONE APPEARED

¶19

The Court made the following Order:

¶20

¶21

CMR, J. C.R.P. No. 1653 of 2023

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶23

Civil Revision Petition No.1653 of 2023

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 19.06.2023, passed in I.A.No.339 of 2023 in O.S.No.148 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principle District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram, whereby the petition filed under Order 26, Rule 1 CPC to appoint an advocatecommissioner to record the evidence of the scientific expert, who has given opinion with regard to the disputed signatures, was dismissed.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶27

The petitioner is the 1St defendant in the Suit. The Suit was filed against him by the plaintiffs therein for specific performance of the contract based on Ex.A1 agreement to sell. The petitioner, as a defendant, has taken a plea of forgery and denied execution of the said agreement to sell. Earlier he has filed a petition to send the disputed document i.e. Ex.A1 to compare the signatures on it along with the admitted signatures of the petitioner available in other documents. The said petition was allowed and the document was sent for examination by the

¶28

¶29

CMR, J. C.R.P. no.1653 of 2023

¶30

expert. The handwriting expert has submitted his report after comparing the signature appearing on Ex.AI with the admitted signatures of the petitioner on other documents, stating that the signature on Ex.A 1 is not tallying with the admitted signatures on the other documents.

¶31

Thereafter, when the Suit is posted for arguments after completion of recording the evidence of both the parties, at the fag end of the Suit, the present petition was filed to appoint an advocate-commissioner to record the evidence of scientific expert. The trial Court by the impugned order dismissed the said petition. The trial Court held that the Suit is an old Suit of the year 2013. The trial in the said Suit commenced long back on 31.12.2014. After closure of the evidence of the plaintiffs that the Suit is posted for evidence of defendants on 15.03.2018, and thereafter, the petition was filed to send the document for comparison by the handwriting expert and after receiving the report from the handwriting expert, that the evidence of the defendants was closed on 08.10.2021 and now in the year 2023 when the Suit is posted for arguments that the present petition is filed for appointment of an advocate-commissioner to record the evidence of the handwriting expert. Therefore, considering

¶32

¶33

CMR, J. C.R.P. No.1653 of 2023

¶34

the laches on the part of the petitioner in filing the present petition and on other grounds, the learned Principal District Judge has dismissed the said petition.

¶35

S) When the report of the expert was received long back in the year 2021, if the petitioner really intends to examine the expert, he ought to have filed the petition well in advance at that time only. He did not file any such petition at that time and now when the Suit stood posted for arguments, at the fag end of the trial, he has filed the present petition. So, obviously the present petition is filed to delay the process of law and to protract the proceedings of the Suit in the trial Court. Moreover, when the report of the handwriting expert is very much in favour of the petitioner/ 1St defendant, and, more particularly, when the genuineness of the said opinion and the report is not disputed by the plaintiffs, there is no necessity to examine the expert. Even the learned counsel for the petitioner now fairly concedes that when the report is in favour of the 1St defendant and when the plaintiffs did not dispute the genuineness of the said report and the opinion, that there is no need to examine the expert. When that be the case, the present petition filed^for appointment

¶36

¶37

CMR, J. C.R.P. No.1653 of 2023

¶38

of an advocate commissioner to record the evidence of the

¶39

scientific expert was rightly dismissed by the trial Court.

¶40

Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition lacks merit and it is liable to be dismissed.

¶41

Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs.

¶42

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any,

¶43

shall also stand closed.

¶44

SD!- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶45

//TRUE COPY//

¶46

,~ /SEON OFFICER

¶47

To, 1. The Principal District Judge,^{Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.} 2. One CC to Sri P Rajesh Babu,^{Advocate [OPUC]}

¶48

Three CD Copies sree

HIGH COURT

DATE D:14/07/2023

ORDER

CRP.NoA653 of 2023

~~ Ji: APJDNPi'~ ;S
S'
eren3 Section '`

¶54

SCc I s©~1p^h-

¶55

DISMISSING THE C.R.P. AT THE ADMISSION STAGE

Yerubandi Venkata Ramana Murthy v. Eli Arun Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yerubandi Venkata Ramana Murthy v. Eli Arun Kumar

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

Dr. N. Ramesh Kumar Vs The Election Commission of India

G.v.Rama Krishna Rao Vs Arumilli Karuna Kumar

M/S.Sri Penusila Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Constructions Vs Sri.Samsher Singh Rawath,Ias

Yeramati Ammiraju, Vs Yeramati Krishna Kalyani

Shaik Moulana Vs Shaik Khadarvali

Badireddy Vijaya Sagar Vs Chekka Veera Venkata Ramana