Partly allowed

Bhagya Lakshmi v. Revuri Lakshmana Rao

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Sept 2024CRP/3719/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a civil revision petition challenging the rejection of an application to receive original documents for signature comparison, holding the trial court erred. Dismissed the other petition and directed disposal of suit within four months.

What did the court decide?

CRP 3719 of 2011 allowed; trail court directed to receive document only for comparison of signatures and dispose of suit within four months.

Bhagya Lakshmi Vs Revuri Lakshmana Rao — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS: 3030 AND 3719 OF 2011

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3030 OF 2011

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the Order and Decree passed in O.S No.29 of 2001 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, dated^22.06.2011.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Bhagya Lakshmi, W/o. Late K.Shanmuka Subramanyeswara^Rao,aged about 36 years, R/o. Hindi Street Gandhinagar, Vijayawada^-3

¶10

...PETITIONER/PETITIONER/D2

¶11

AND

¶12

Revuri Lakshmana Rao, S/o. Narasimha Rao, Aged about 55 years R/o. Mohana Apartments., Municipal Employees Colony Labbipet, Vijayawada.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

¶14

Khata Puma Venkata Ramana Visweswara Rao, S/o. Kutumba Rao, Aged about 42 years, R/o. H.No. 26-11-3 Hindi Street, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada-3

¶15

K.Nagaraja Kumari, W/o. Kutumba Rao, Aged about^70years,R/o. H.No. 26-11-3 Hindi Street Gandhinagar, Vijayawada-3

¶16

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/D1 & D3

¶17

LA. MO: 1 OP 2Q11(CRPMP. NO: 4326 OF 2011)

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybe} O.S.No. 29 of 2001 on the file of pleased to stay all further proceedings in the learned II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, pending^{finaldisposal} of the CRP

¶19

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(CRPMP. NO: 1115 OF 2016)

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybe} the notice in the CRP to the pleased to permit the petitioner to serve respondent No.1 by substituted service by publication of notice in any locally circulated daily newspaper at Vijayawada

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner ; SRI VSR ANJANEYALU

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI DEVALARAJU ANIL^KUMAR

¶23

Counsel for other Respondents ; NONE APPEARED

¶24

r.iwai RFVISIQN PETITION NO: 3719 OF 2011

¶25

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved^by the Order and Decree passed in I.A No.458 of 2011 in^{O.SNo.29of2001} on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, dated 10.08.2011.

¶26

Between:

¶27

Bhagya Lakshmi, W/o. Late K.Shanmuka Subramanyeswara Rao, Aged about 36 years, R/o. Hindi Street Gandhinagar, Vijayawada^-3 ,

¶28

...PETITIONER/PETITIONER/D2

¶29

AND

¶30

Revuri Lakshmana Rao, S/o. Narasimha Rao, Aged about 55 years R/o. Mohana Apartments., Municipal Employees Colony, Labbipet, Vijayawada.

¶31

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

¶32

Khata Puma Venkata Ramana Visweswara Rao, S/o. Kutumba Rao, Aged about 42 years, R/o. H.No. 26-11-3 Hindi Street, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada-3

¶33

K.Nagaraja Kumari, W/o. Kutumba Rao, Aged about 70 years, R/o. H.No. 26-11-3 Hindi Street, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada-3

¶34

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DI & D3

¶35

I.A. MO: 1 OF 2011(CRPMP. NO: 5344 OF 2011)

¶36

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in OS No. 29^of2001 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, pending final disposal of the CRP

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VSR ANJANEYALU

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI DEVALARAJU ANIL KUMAR

¶39

Counsel for other Respondents : NONE APPEARED

¶40

The Court made the following ORDER :

¶41

APHC010363322011

¶42

0MS

¶43

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶44

[3460]

¶45

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶46

PRESENT

¶47

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶48

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3030/2011

Between:

Bhagya Lakshmi

...PETITIONER

AND

Revuri Lakshmana Rao And 2 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶54

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶55

1.VS R ANJANEYALU

¶56

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶57

1.DEVALARAJU ANIL KUMAR

¶58

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3719/2011

¶59

Between:

¶60

Bhagya Lakshmi ...PETITIONER

¶61

AND

¶62

Revuri Lakshmana Rao and Others

¶63

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶64

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶65

1.VS R ANJANEYALU

¶66

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶67

1.DEVALARAJU ANIL KUMAR

¶68

The Court made the following:

¶69

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶70

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3030 & 3719 of 2011

¶71

COMMON ORDER:

¶72

The CRP.No.3030 of 2011 was filed against the interlocutory order dated 22.06.2011 in !.A.No.459 of 2011 in O.S.No.29 of 2001 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada,^{KrishnaDistrict.}

¶73

The CRP.No.3719 of 2011 was filed against the interlocutory order dated 10.08.2011 in I.A.No.458 of 2011 in O.S.No.29 of 2001 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada,^{KrishnaDistrict.}

¶74

The petitioner is the Defendant No.2. The I.A.No.459 of 2011 was filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act praying the Court to send the suit documents to the General Manager, Forgery Detection Cell, Indian Security Press, Nasik Road,^{Maharashtraforthe} purpose of comparison of admitted signatures on original registered partition deed with the disputed signatures found on^Ex.A.14.

¶75

The I.A.No.458 of 2011 was filed under Order VIII Rule 1(a)(3) R/w Section 151 CPC to receive the original registered partition deed vide document No.768/1999 dated 05.02.1999 for the purpose of comparison of signatures of the husband of the petitioner/ 2"'^ defendant with the disputed signatures on the suit document Ex.A.1.

¶76

The trial Court passed a detailed order in I.A.No.458^of2011 rejecting the request of the petitioner to send the documents for comparison of signatures. As a consequence of rejection^ofI.A.No.459 of 2011, I.A.No.458 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner for comparison to receive the documents for the purpose of comparison^was also rejected. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petitions^arefiled.

¶77

¶78

¶79

Heard Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Devalaraju Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶80

Taking into consideration the stand of the defendants with regard to the suit document, the plaintiff/Respondent^No.1 herein had filed I.A.No.5110 of 2005 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the suit document i.e. Ex.A.1 for comparison^{withtheadmitted} signatures of the Defendants Nos.1 and 3. The said application was allowed. The suit document was sent for comparison of signatures to the Director, Central Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Hyderabad.

¶81

The Defendant No.1 subsequently filed another application I.A.No.5945 of 2005 to send the suit document with other documents containing admitted signatures to the handwriting expert at Nasik. The said application was allowed and the documents^{atfirstinstance} were sent to the Central Government Examiner for Questioned documents. Government Press, Nasik. A report was received on 05.08.2006 from the General Manager, Security Press,^NasikRoad.

¶82

A report from the handwriting expert was also received by the trial Court. The handwriting expert was summoned, examined^and cross examined by the contesting parties. The report^andconnected documents were marked as Exs.X.1 to X.4 and the handwriting expert was examined as P.W.4. The suit was posted for arguments^andwas heard-in-part in the year 2009.

¶83

¶84

to 10. While so, the Defendant No.2 filed the present application send the suit agreement of sale for comparison with the admitted / signature of her husband in the registered partition^deed that was sought to be received in evidence in I.A.No.458 of²⁰¹¹ as stated supra.

¶85

¶86

The trial Court was of the opinion that the opinion of the handwriting expert was received, witness was examined and the expert was examined as witness and it would not be^{appropriateatthis} length of time to again send the suit documents for^comparison. The trial Court was of the opinion that the application is filed only to protract the litigation and dismissed the I.A. In view^{ofthedismissalof} I.A.No.459 of 2011, the I.A.No.458 of 2011 to receive^theoriginal document for the purpose of comparison of signatures^was also rejected.

¶87

This Court is of the opinion that the reasoning given^bythetrial Court as regards reference for expert opinion cannot^{befaulted,asthe} application filed by the Defendant No.2 at the stage of arguments cannot be entertained, more so, when an expert’s opinion^wasalready

¶88

on record and the said expert was also cross examined^asP.W.4. Coming to I.A.No.459 of 2011, the rejection of original^{partitiondeed} vide document No.768/1999 dated 05.02.1999 as a consequence^of dismissal of I.A.No.459 of 2011, is clearly erroneous.

¶89

This Court is of the opinion that the trial Court could^receivethe documents only for the limited purpose of comparison^{ofsignatures,} which the trial Court is entitled under Section 73^{oftheIndianEvidence} Act. Therefore, the rejection of I.A.No.458 of 2011 cannot be sustained.

¶90

¶91

¶92

In the light of the above, CRP.No.3030 of 2011 is dismissed^and the CRP.No.3719 of 2011 is allowed. The trial Court shall receive the document in evidence only for the purpose of comparison under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. As the suit is of the year 2001 and is at the stage of arguments, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of four (4) months from today.

¶93

No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶94

SD/- M.PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR fi SEcVlOfI OFFICER

¶95

//TRUE COPY// fi

¶96

To,

¶97

The II /\dditional District Judge; Vijayawada, Krishna^District.

¶98

One CC to Sri. VSR Anjaneyalu Advocate [OPUC]

¶99

One CC to Sri. Devalaraju Anil Kumar Advocate [OPUC]

¶100

THREE CD COPIES

TAC

■-i i

HIGH COURT

DATED:12/09/2024

ORDER

CRP.No.3030 & 3719 of 2011

¶107

5'-'
O
oc m
o 2 5 mi 222^)

¶108

CRP NO.3030 OF 2011 IS DISMISSED CRP N0.3719 OF 2011 IS ALLOWED

Bhagya Lakshmi v. Revuri Lakshmana Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagya Lakshmi v. Revuri Lakshmana Rao

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

Taneti Giribabu Vs Nemalakanti Yesu Mariyamma and 3 Others

Harijana Naganna Vs P. Mahaboob Basha

Bakki Israel Karunakar, Srikakulam Dist and Another Vs Tammineni Narayana Rao, Srikakulam Dist

M/S Sei Green Flash Pvt. Ltd. Chennai Vs P Maheswara Reddy, Kadapa Dist and 2 Others

M/S. Sei Green Flash Pvt. Ltd., Tamilnadu State Vs Palem Maheswara Reddy, Kadapa Dist and 2 Others

Nidadavolu Rama Tulasamma Vs Gunnmella Pattabhi (died)