The court dismissed a civil revision petition regarding a request for expert opinion on a promissory note. It held that naked eye inspection revealed an alteration in the amount, making expert evidence unnecessary for the trial court to decide the suit.
The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE
PRESENT:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2514 OF 2009
Between:
G. Samuel ..... Petitioner
AND
R. Vasantha Reddy .....Respondent
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2514 OF 2009
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendant G. Samuel against the order dated 30-03-2009 made in I.A. No.140 of 2009, a petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking to send the promissory note to the expert opinion, in O.S. No.744 of 2003 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Revision Petitioner wanted to send the document, promissory note dated 04-08-2000, to the expert for his opinion. But, in view of the nature of the document and as can be seen from the xerox copy of the
document, where it is clearly found that amount of “Rs.15,000/-“ is altered to “Rs.45,000/-“ and in view of the averments in the plaint, where the amount is mentioned as Rs.15,000/-, the trial Court can decide the matter even without sending the document to expert for his opinion.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff contends that in the promissory note in question, in words it is clearly written as ‘rupees forty five thousand only’, as such, the amount due under the promissory note is to be taken as Rs.45,000/- only. Even this question can also be take into consideration by the trial Court while deciding the suit.
5. In the circumstances, there is absolutely no necessity of sending the promissory note in question to the expert for his opinion, since, as already observed, even to naked eye, it is clearly evident that there is alteration in the amount portion from “Rs.15,000/-“ to “Rs.45,000/-“, which can be taken into consideration by the trial Court while deciding the suit. Therefore, I see no merits to entertain this revision. It is to be noted that the trial Court shall not treat that there is any finding in this revision with regard to the promissory note and the trial Court shall independently decide that question.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. No order as to costs.
August 25, 2009.
NOTE:
______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J
Furnish C.C. of the order within two (2) days.
(B/O) PV
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a promissory note with material alteration in the amount requires expert opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
G. Samuel
R. Vasantha Reddy
P. Swaroop Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
