Dismissed

Naramgari Munisekhar Reddy v. C.Jayasankar Reddy

Telangana HC18 Jun 2010CRP/1080/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the trial court's rejection of an application for handwriting comparison. The court held that signatures in a vakalat or written statement are not admitted by the plaintiff and cannot be used to rebut allegations of forgery.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed and no order as to costs was passed.

Naramgari Munisekhar Reddy Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1080 of 2010

¶6

Between: Naramgari Munisekhar Reddy

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND C.Jayasankar Reddy

¶9

.....RESPONDENT

¶10

The Court made the following:

¶11

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH

¶12

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1080 of 2010

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant aggrieved by the order passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati dated 19.02.2010 in I.A.2013/2009 in O.S.1135/2008.

¶15

Heard both the counsel.

¶16

The petitioner is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of money based on promissory note dated 25.12.2005 said to have been executed by him for an amount of Rs.50,000/-. The relevant material papers i.e. plaint and written statement have not been placed before me. The petitioner being

¶17

defendant filed I.A.2013/2009 for sending Ex.A1 promissory note to a handwriting expert for the purpose of comparison of his signatures with the admitted specimen signature and for opinion under Sec.45 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is stated that he never signed the promissory note and it is a created document, that he did not borrow the said amount and did not sign the promissory note. The signature on Ex.A1 promissory note does not belong to him. Therefore, the said application is filed for sending Ex.A1 promissory note for the purpose of comparison of his signatures with his admitted specimen signatures in order to elicit the truth.

¶18

A counter was filed denying all the allegations stating that the petitioner is not entitled to send the said document for expert opinion in the absence of any admitted signatures in the relevant period.

¶19

The Court below dismissed the said application contending that the defendant’s evidence completed and after completion of his evidence only, the said application has been filed. Except his own evidence he has not examined any other witness. The petitioner has not filed any document of the relevant period containing his signature except the written statement, vakalat and his deposition and therefore, the Court below dismissed the said application.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff cannot dispute the signatures of the defendant in his vakalat, written statement and oral deposition as per the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Budumuru Vijayanandh^[1] .

¶21

I have perused the said judgment. As per the facts of the said case, the suit was filed in 2003 and immediately after plaintiff’s evidence was over, the defendant filed I.A. in 2003 itself for sending the suit promissory note, written statement, vakalat to handwriting expert for comparison of his signature and for his opinion. As the said

¶22

application was filed in the same year of the suit, the learned Judge directed to send the promissory note to the handwriting expert after obtaining the specimen signatures of the petitioner in open court.

¶23

Another judgment relied on by the petitioner is in the case of M.A.Sulthan Mohiuddin vs. Mohammada Suleman^[2] . I am of the opinion that the said case goes against the contention of the petitioner. According to the facts of the said case, the suit was filed in 1995 and the defendant filed I.A. in 2006 for sending the promissory note for the opinion of the handwriting expert for comparison of his admitted signatures. The said I.A.was dismissed, against which the CRP was filed and the CRP was also dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court holding that when the signatures on vakalat, deposition or written statement are not admitted by the plaintiff, the Court has to search for some other admitted signatures. Contemporaneousness of such signatures would pose another problem of its own. The net result is that the trial of the suit would be protracted beyond any reasonable limit of time. Accordingly, confirmed the orders of the trial Court.

¶24

I am of the opinion that if the defendant disputes his signature on the promissory note, it is for the defendant to adduce evidence rebutting the allegations made by the plaintiff. It is for the defendant to plead and prove that the signature on the promissory note does not belong to him and he has to rely on any of his admitted signatures if available. If no such admitted signatures are available, it is open for the defendant to adduce any other evidence. I am of the opinion that it is not open for the defendant to simply seek to send the promissory note for expert opinion to compare the signatures on Ex.A1 with that of the signatures on vakalat, written statement and depositions. If such of plea of the defendant in respect of the suit filed based on the

¶25

promissory note is allowed, most of the litigants would purposefully put their signatures in different form to avoid the legal liability. Therefore, merely because he has put his signature in vakalat, written statement and depositions, it cannot be said that the said signatures are admitted by the plaintiff. Therefore, I do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise to interfere with the impugned order.

¶26

The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶27

___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J

¶28

Dated: 18.06.2010 Dsr

¶29

[1] AIR 2005 Andhra Pradesh 35 [2] 2006 (4) ALT 634

Naramgari Munisekhar Reddy v. C.Jayasankar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naramgari Munisekhar Reddy v. C.Jayasankar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeevaraj Barde Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer,Kamareddy,Nizamabad

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Vs Sri Ch. Hanman Singh

Indian Hair Industries (P) Ltd. Vs Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam

D.Uma Devi Vs K.Sukumar Reddy

Penubaku Balakotaiah, Vs Kantilal Dande, The District Collector

S.Syed Saheb, Vs S.C. Sankaramma