Allowed

Varada Chittibabu v. Badam Laxmanarao

Telangana HC12 Mar 2010CRP/272/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a civil revision petition against a dismissal of an application under Section 151 CPC and Section 45 Evidence Act seeking handwriting expert opinion. The court quashed the lower court's order, directing it to submit disputed and admitted documents to the expert for comparison.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside; the trial Court is directed to send disputed and admitted documents to the Government handwriting expert for comparison and opinion.

Varada Chittibabu Vs Badam Laxmanarao — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 8.12.2009 in I.A. No. 338 of 2009 in O.S. No. 95 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Cheepurupalli, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Section 151 C.P.C. read with Section 45 of the Evidence Act, for sending the suit documents Exs. A1 to A4 to the Government handwriting expert for opinion was dismissed.

¶2

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant. None appeared for the respondent-plaintiff though served with notice.

¶3

3. Perused the records.

¶4

4. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money stated to be due from the petitioner-defendant under suit promissory note. The petitioner contested the suit inter alia disputing the signatures on the pro note and the endorsement. The disputed documents containing the disputed signatures were marked as Exs. A1 to A4. The petitioner filed the present I.A. No. 338 of 2009 seeking permission for sending Exs. A1 to A4 to the Government handwriting expert for opinion. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court only on the ground that the petitioner has not furnished any details of the documents containing the admitted signatures which have to be sent to the expert for the purpose of comparison with the disputed signatures.

¶5

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner furnished the details of the admitted documents and in fact filed those documents, namely, pattadar pass books along with I.A. No. 368 of 2009 and the said application was allowed and the said documents were also permitted to be received.

¶6

6. When that is so, the documents containing the admitted signatures were already placed on record, the dismissal of the present application, I.A. No. 338 of 2009 on the ground that the documents are not

¶7

filed or that the particulars of the documents containing the admitted signatures are not furnished is therefore, unsustainable. In view of the defence of the petitioner-defendant and in view of the fact that the other application, I.A. No.368 of 2009, filed by the petitioner for receipt of the documents containing the admitted signatures is already allowed, it is considered that the petitioner can be given an opportunity for sending the disputed documents to handwriting expert for opinion.

¶8

7. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to send the disputed documents along with the documents containing the admitted signatures to the Government handwriting expert for comparison and opinion.

¶9

8. In the result, the Civil Revision petition is allowed with no order as to costs.

Varada Chittibabu v. Badam Laxmanarao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varada Chittibabu v. Badam Laxmanarao

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

Case details

Similar cases

Jagana Chinaramamurthy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mahanti Marayya Vs The State of A.P.

Uppaluri Srinivasa Rao Vs State of A.P.

Nandamuri Gopala Rao Vs State of a.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor

Meesala Krishna Rao Vs Allu Suryanarayan

M. Murali Krishna Vs Margadarsi Chit Fund Ltd.