The court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order that refused a request for handwriting comparison of a promissory note. The court upheld the trial court's view that the delayed application was an attempt to protract the suit.
The Civil Revision Petition is 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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CIVIL REVISON PETITION No.1398 OF 2012
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 14.02.2012 passed by the Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, in I.A.No.338 of 2012 in O.S.No.40 of 2010.
The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money based on a promissory note. Pending the suit, the petitioner/defendant filed the above Interlocutory Application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for sending Ex.A.1-suit promissory note dated 14.03.2007 along with his admitted signatures found in Vakalat and Written Statement to the Handwriting Expert for comparison and for opinion. The trial Court, having examined the respective pleas of the parties, dismissed the Interlocutory Application holding that since the defendant has taken the plea of forgery as early as on 11.10.2010 while filing his written statement in the main suit for the first time, he would have taken such steps for sending Ex.A.1 to the Handwriting Expert immediately after filing his written statement so as to show his bona fides. But, the defendant kept quite from 2010 and filed the present Interlocutory Application in the year 2012 i.e., when the suit was posted for hearing arguments, which is nothing but protracting the matter.
Having heard the learned counsel on either side and on a perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is in accordance with law and hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.
The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
Dated: 08.06.2012
va
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the Interlocutory Application for handwriting comparison as it was delayed and prima facie protracted.
Whether the Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of the Interlocutory Application deserves interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Respondent
Raja Elango
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
