The Civil Revision jurisdiction invoked where the High Court dismissed a petition seeking to send a promissory note for handwriting comparison after evidence was closed, noting the lack of bona fides and absence of admitted signatures.
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
FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2375 of 2010
Between: S.A.Khadar Valli
..... PETITIONER
AND P.H.Swarna Latha
.....RESPONDENT
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2375 of 2010
ORDER:
Petitioner is the defendant in the suit O.S.96/2007 filed by the respondent herein on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Piler for recovery of money. During pendency of the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.426/2009 under Or.26 Rule10-A CPC r/w.Sec.45 of the Evidence Act to send Ex.A1 suit promissory note for comparison of the signatures with the signatures available in the written statement, vakalat, chief affidavit of the defendant and served summons by handwriting expert.
Admittedly, the suit promissory note is of the year prior to filing of the suit. The date of execution of promissory note was not noted anywhere in the material papers filed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed the said I.A. only on the ground that he has taken plea that the
said promissory note is forged and fabricated one, based on which the plaintiff filed the said suit. It is stated that the mother of the defendant filed suit in O.S.88/2007 against the plaintiff’s sister and also obtained order of attachment of property and due to the said reason, the plaintiff filed the said suit to take revenge against the family of the defendant. It is further stated that the plaintiff, attestors and the scribe colluded together and forged the signature of the defendant and fabricated the suit promissory note. Therefore, he seeks to send the suit promissory note for comparing his signature with that of admitted signatures on vakalat, written statement and chief affidavit.
The Court below dismissed the said application on the ground that the evidence was already over and the matter is posted for arguments and more so no admitted signatures are filed by the petitioner/defendant.
It is not in dispute that the evidence was closed even from the defendant side on 19.02.2009 itself and when the matter was coming up for arguments only the said application has been filed. The petitioner also relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Suthraya Prasada Rao v. Bogathi Jaya Rami Reddy[1] wherein this Court held that the disputed signature on the promissory note can be sent for expert opinion for comparison with the admitted signatures on vakalat.
I am of the opinion that merely because the defendant affixed the signatures on vakalat, written statement and the chief examination, it cannot be said that the plaintiff admitted the said signatures. Question of admitted signatures of the defendant in the suit proceedings does not arise and the petitioner did not say anything about the contemporaneous document which was admitted by the plaintiff. I do not see any bona fides on the part of the defendant in filing such an application after evidence is over and during course of the arguments. The Civil Revision Petition is bereft of any merits and the same is
accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 02.07.2010 Dsr
[1] 2009(2) ALT 509
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for handwriting comparison signed up during arguments after evidence is closed admits under Section 45 of the Evidence Act.
Whether plaintiff's signatures on written statement and vakalat qualify as admitted signatures for the purpose of Section 45 of the Evidence Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Suthraya Prasada Rao v. Bogathi Jaya Rami ReddyReferred¶17
Suthraya Prasada Rao v. Bogathi Jaya Rami Reddy 2009(2) ALT 509
Suthraya Prasada Rao v. Bogathi Jaya Rami ReddyReferred¶17
2009(2) ALT 509
2 provisions across 2 enactments
S.A.Khadar Valli
P.H.Swarna Latha
V. Eswaraiah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
