Dismissed

L.Krupavathamma v. Bhogireddy Veera naga Pothu Raju

Telangana HC1 Nov 2012CRP/1994/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order dismissed two civil revision petitions challenging orders rejecting applications for handwriting expert comparison of a disputed promissory note. The court held that the petitioner failed to point out admitted signatures of the deceased for comparison and that the sought documents were not contemporaneous.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petitions dismissed; miscellaneous applications dismissed; no order as to costs.

L.Krupavathamma Vs Bhogireddy Veera naga… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1994 and 1849 OF 2012

Dt:- 01.11.2012

Between:-

L.Krupavathamma

… Petitioner and

Bhogireddy Veera Naga Pothu Raju and others

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

This Court made the following:-

¶10

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1994 and 1849 OF 2012

¶11

ORDER: -

¶12

Petitioner in both these revisions is defendant No.2 in O.S.No.74 of 2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda. Petitioner filed I.A.No.1134 of 2011 seeking to send the suit promissory note-Ex.A1 for examination by hand writing expert. However, it was not pointed out as to any admitted signature of the deceased appearing in any document on record for the purpose of comparison with Ex.A1. Petitioner, therefore, filed another I.A.No.113 of 2012 seeking to send for the admitted signatures of the deceased from the vakalat and pleadings in O.S.Nos.435 and 436 of 2003 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda so as to compare the same with Ex.A1.

¶13

Respondent/plaintiff filed a counter denying that the said documents, which are sought to be called for, contain admitted signature of the deceased. It was also stated that the said documents even if assume to be admitted documents are not contemporaneous with the promissory note Ex.A1, which is dated 15.10.2008, and the

¶14

called for documents being five years earlier thereto, cannot be compared with Ex.A1.

¶15

Both the said applications were considered and rejected by the court below by a separate order, against which these two revisions are preferred.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶17

The availability of admitted signature must be specified by the petitioner before seeking comparison of the disputed document through the handwriting expert. There is no material to hold that the documents be called for as prayed for in I.A.No.113 of 2012 are admitted documents executed by the deceased. Apart from that they are not contemporaneous with Ex.A1. Court below was, therefore, right in not accepting both the said applications moved by the petitioner/defendant. The order passed by the court below, therefore, does not call for any interference.

¶18

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. The miscellaneous applications, if any, stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶20

01.11.2012 lmv

¶21

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶22

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1994 and 1849 OF 2012

¶23

01.11.2012

¶24

lmvi

L.Krupavathamma v. Bhogireddy Veera naga Pothu Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.Krupavathamma v. Bhogireddy Veera naga Pothu Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kancharla Ram Reddy Vs Kachavarapu Pushpavathi

Y.M. Subba Rao, Vs G.Venkamma , Kamaladevi

H.Naga Raju, Vs M/s Margadarsi Chit Fund Limited, Kurnool

Ms.Sahara India Commerdal Corporation Ltd. Vs Ms.Sahara States Owners Welfare Association

Dr. C. Anjaneyulu Vs Dr. C. Srujana

Jakka Venkata Subbarayudu Vs S.Venkata Rami Reddy