Dismissed

B. Gangadhar v. Choppa Lakshmikar Reddy

Telangana HC9 Dec 2011CRP/4740/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a civil revision petition challenging the refusal of the trial court to refer a forged promissory note to a handwriting expert. The High Court held that since the petitioner failed to cross-examine the scribe regarding the alleged alteration, the trial court was correct in rejecting the request, noting its own power to compare handwriting under Section 73.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition dismissed. No costs.

B. Gangadhar Vs Choppa Lakshmikar Reddy — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4740 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.08.2011 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 554 of 2011 in O.S. No. 440 of 2009, filed by the petitioner, praying to send Ex. A1 to a handwriting expert for comparison of the writing of P.W.3 contained therein with that of his admitted writing and to give opinion about the correction of number “3” as “8” in the month column.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order under revision.

¶6

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since there is alteration in Ex. A1 with regard to the number “3” as “8” in the month column, it is appropriate that writing on Ex. A1 along with the admitted writing of the scribe, who was examined as P.W.3, should be sent to an handwriting expert, for comparison, but the Court below committed an error in not sending Ex. A1 to handwriting expert for opinion.

¶7

This contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. As can be seen from the order under revision, the petitioner has taken a stand that Ex.A1-promissory note is a forged and fabricated document. The respondent, to prove that Ex.A1 was executed by the petitioner, examined the attester and the scribe as P.W.3. Even though the respondent examined the scribe as P.W.3, the fact remains, the petitioner, in the cross-examination, did not put any suggestion to P.W.3 with respect to the alleged alteration. The petitioner having

¶8

taken a stand that he has not executed Ex. A1 and that it is forged and fabricated for the purpose of the case, and having not put any suggestion to P.W.3- scribe with regard to the alteration in his crossexamination, the Court below felt that it is not a case, where Ex.A1 should be sent to a handwriting expert for opinion, and no fault can be found therewith, particularly when the opinion of the handwriting expert is not final and the Court by itself under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, can examine and compare the writing of P.W.3-scribe on Ex.A1 with that of his admitted writing, to ascertain the difference, if any.

¶9

For the foregoing reasons, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶10

The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶11

___________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA, J

¶12

9^th December, 2011 IBL

B. Gangadhar v. Choppa Lakshmikar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Gangadhar v. Choppa Lakshmikar Reddy

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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Venkata Ramana Vs G.Narayana

Smt. a. Papulamma Vs Kolla Lakshmi Devamma

Azgar Ali, Vs S. Gurappa Naidu

P.v.Ramachandra Reddy, Vs P.Ranga Reddy

A. Dharma Rao Vs Sri K.Kishna

E.Kumar Vs E.Munaswamy Naidu