The single judge dismissed an application seeking expert opinion on the age of ink and paper in a suit pronote, holding that the specific pleas required for such an opinion were not squarely taken in the written statement.
The revision petition was dismissed. No order as to costs.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2809 OF 2009
DATE:18-03-2011
BETWEEN
Kolapalli Udayabhaskara Rao and others AND Chinnam Gopala Prasad
…Petitioners
…Respondent
THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2809 OF 2009
ORDER:
This revision is filed by the defendants to revise the dismissal orders passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam in I.A.No.1522 of 2007 in O.S.No.45 of 2001, dated 3.6.2009 filed under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act read with Order 26 Rule 10-A C.P.C. for sending Ex.A.1 pronote to the Government handwriting expert at Hyderabad, for comparison to determine the age of ink that has been used for two signatures across the revenue stamp and age of the ink to fill up the columns in Ex.A.1 pronote including the signatures of the scribe and attestors; to
ascertain whether the year 1993 was altered as 1998 under 2nd signature of revenue stamp, and if so, with one ink or different inks and age of inks; and to ascertain when Ex.A.1 pronote paper was manufactured.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner No.1-defendant No.1 filed written statement alleging inter alia that the plaintiff is no other than the brother-in-law of one Devote Gangaiah, that during the life time of second defendant, the first respondent and his brother made business transactions with said Gangaiah and settled the entire accounts during the life time of his brother Kolapelli Anjaneyulu i.e. second defendant, that said Gangaiah is a chronic litigant and he is in the habit of filing of the suits basing on the forged documents. It is stated that this defendant is ready to send the suit pronote to the handwriting expert as well as Government press at Nasik for determination of the forged signatures, age of ink and year of printing of revenue stamp. After filing the written statement, the petitioners herein also filed I.A.No.1011 of 2006 to send Ex.A.1 pronote to the Government printing press at Nasik, for determination of the date of printing the revenue stamps affixed thereon and also the date of release of the said stamps. On allowing the petition on 23.2.2007, Ex.A.1 pronote was sent to the Government printing press and the Deputy Works Manager in Government printing press issued opinion stating that the revenue stamps affixed on Ex.A.1 pronote were first printed on 4.5.1991 and dispatched from the press on 20.5.1991. On receipt of said report, the impugned I.A. is filed by the petitioners stating that the report of Government Printing Press, Nasik shows that the stamps affixed on Ex.A.1 pronote were first printed on 4.5.1991 and dispatched on 20.5.1991, whereas, the date underneath the 2nd signature on Ex.A.1 is originally put as 15.3.1993, which proves the fabrication of the suit
pronote-Ex.A.1 and therefore, the same should be sent to the handwriting expert for his opinion as referred to above. On dismissal of the said I.A., the present revision is filed.
Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that since the petitioners took a plea that Ex.A.1-pronote is a rank forged, they are entitled to get it ascertained the age of ink and pronote to substantiate their plea.
Though the first petitioner-first defendant categorically pleaded in the written statement that he is ready to send the suit pronote to the handwriting expert as well as Government Press at Nasik for determination of the forged signatures, age of ink and year of printing of revenue stamp, in the earlier application i.e. I.A.No.1011 of 2006 he has not chosen to get the opinion on all the aspects which are not sought for. Further there is no plea in the written statement that the year 1993 was materially altered as 1998 and on the basis of the same, the present suit is filed to save the limitation. When no such plea was taken and no such issue was framed, the petitioners now cannot seek the opinion of the expert in instalment basis, which is nothing but procrastination of the proceedings.
The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
_______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J.
MARCH 18, 2011 Tsr.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision court is justified in dismissing the application for expert opinion when the plea for forgery was not framed as an issue in the written statement.
Kolapalli Udayabhaskara Rao and others
Chinnam Gopala Prasad
A. GOPAL REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
