Penmetsa Satyanarayana Raju Vs Sankuratri Uttama Rao

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the common Order and decree dated 03-05-2024, passed in I.A. No. 63 of 2023 in O.S. No. 181 of 2021 on the file of the IV Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Cum SJFCM (Excise), West Godavri District Eluru for the following grounds among other

¶17

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶18

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 pleased to stay all the proceedings in the suit O.S. 181 of 2021 on the file of the IV Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum SJFCM (Excise), West Godavari District at Eluru during the pendency of the above appeal and may pass

¶19

2

¶20

VS,J C.R.P.No.1454 of 2024

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.KOTHA NAGA SURYA RAO

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶24

1.C VENKAIAH

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

3

¶27

VS,J C.R.P.No.1454 of 2024

¶28

ORDER :

¶29

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant challenging the docket order dated 03.05.2024 passed in I.A.No.63 of 2023 in O.S. No.181 of 2021 on the file of IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum SJFCM (Excise), Eluru, West Godavari District.

¶30

The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.181 of 2021 against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.13,27,333/- together with interest basing on the promissory note dated 02.12.2019.

¶31

The petitioner herein has filed a written statement denying the averments in

¶32

the plaint and stated that the alleged promissory note is a forged and fabricated document and is not supported by any valid consideration. Subsequently, the petitioner/defendant filed a petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking to send the signatures on the suit promissory note to handwriting expert, for comparing the same with his admitted signatures on the registered Partition Deed dated 07.07.2021 and Fixed Deposit receipt of the Ilaparru Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Ilaparru dated 04.09.2019.

¶33

The respondent/plaintiff filed counter resisting the application.

¶34

The Court below having considered the matter held that the registered Partition Deed dated 07.07.2021 cannot be considered to be contemporaneous document as the same was executed in the year 2021 whereas the suit promissory note was executed in the year 2019. So far as

¶35

4

¶36

VS,J C.R.P.No.1454 of 2024

¶37

the second document i.e., Fixed Deposit Receipt is concerned, the Court below held that it being a xerox copy, cannot be permitted for comparison. In support of the said finding, the Court below has relied upon the order of this Court in Ainampudi Lalitha Prasad, East Godavari District vs. Gonela Subramanyam, E.G. District, dt. 30.04.2023 vide common order passed in Cr.P.Nos.2716, 2736 and 3228 of 2015, wherein, referring to the decisions in Bheri Nageswara Rao vs. Mavuri Veerabhadra Rao and others¹ at para 4

¶38

held as follows:

¶39

“4. Section 45 of the Act enables the Court to obtain the opinion of an expert on various aspects, including the one relating to the comparison of disputed signatures. An expert would be in a position to render his opinion, only when the original of the document containing the disputed signature is forwarded to him. Further, there can be effective comparison and verification of the signatures, if only another document containing the undisputed signatures of the contemporary period are made available to the expert. And;

¶40

In T.Lakshmi Theresamma vs. State of A.P.² , wherein it was held as

¶41

follows:

¶42

“A Photostat copy is a copy taken from mechanical process. If the entries are shown accurately as in the original patta, there is a possibility of arriving at such conclusion. But, the mechanical process does not show the accuracy on account of blurred signatures/defective photo copying. Therefore, such comparison is impermissible under law, as there is every possibility of change of signatures due to passage of time and there is every possibility to sign on the documents in disguise, so as to obtain a favourable opinion from the handwriting expert. But, what is required as per law is that, any authentic contemporaneous document containing signatures of the parties has to be referred along with the disputed signatures for comparison and opinion.”

¶43

1 2006(4) ALD 295

¶44

2 2021 SCC Online AP 3670

¶45

5

¶46

VS,J C.R.P.No.1454 of 2024

¶47

Having held so, the Court below has dismissed the application. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶48

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant contended that the Court below erred in dismissing the application and thereby denied opportunity to the petitioner/defendant to prove that the suit promissory note is a forged document. It is further contended that even at the stage of arguments, a petition to send the documents for expert opinion is maintainable. He further contended that the Court below ought to have allowed the application as it would cause no prejudice to the respondent/plaintiff. He, therefore, prays to allow the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶50

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that as the registered Partition Deed was executed much after the suit promissory note and the second document i.e., the Fixed Deposit Receipt is only a xerox copy, the Court below has rightly refused to send the signatures on the said documents for comparison with the signatures on the suit promissory note and no interference is warranted therewith.

¶51

The petitioner/defendant having taken a plea in the written statement that the suit promissory note is a forged document, came up with the present petition to send the signatures on the suit promissory note along with admitted signatures on registered Partition Deed dated 07.07.2021 and Fixed Deposit

¶52

6

¶53

VS,J C.R.P.No.1454 of 2024

¶54

Receipt dated 04.09.2021. Admittedly, suit promissory note is dated 02.12.2019 and the registered Partition Deed is dated 07.07.2021. Thus there is a time gap of two years between the two documents. Though it is not a huge time gap however since the second document i.e., Fixed Deposit Receipt is close in time to the disputed document i.e., suit promissory note and both these documents are executed in the same year, it is desirable to send both these documents for comparison and such comparison would be most effective. However, as the petitioner has filed only xerox copy of the Fixed Deposit Receipt, he shall file the original document for definitive and reliable expert opinion as a photocopy may lack crucial elements.

¶55

In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed on a condition that the petitioner shall file original Fixed Deposit Receipt dated 04.09.2019 for comparison of the signatures thereon along with disputed signatures on the suit promissory note dated 02.12.2019. Thereupon, the Court below shall send the same to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion. The said process shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of filing the original fixed deposit receipt by the petitioner herein.

¶56

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶57

___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶58

Date :19.09.2025. KGR

Penmetsa Satyanarayana Raju v. Sankuratri Uttama Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Penmetsa Satyanarayana Raju v. Sankuratri Uttama Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pagidala Narasimha Reddy Vs Thummala Veerabramhananda Reddy

Villuri Appalanarasamma Vs Kondapalli Venkata Lakshmi

M/S.Gev Projects Vs M/S.Gev Radha Madhav Flat Owners Association

St Anns Girls High School Vs K Sasidhar IAS

Palakondu Ramanaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammad Arif Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh