Dismissed

Thota Sivaiah v. Kancharla Gurubrahmam

Telangana HC12 Apr 2013CRP/1604/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petitions filed against the dismissal of an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The trial court rejected the application due to the time gap and lack of contemporaneous documents to verify signature. This court dismissed the revisions.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petitions were dismissed, leaving it open for the petitioner to file a fresh application by enclosing contemporaneous documents.

Thota Sivaiah Vs Kancharla Gurubrahmam — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARSIMHA REDDY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1597 And 1604 OF 2013

¶3

C O M M O N O R D E R:

¶4

The respondent filed O.S.No.152 of 2010 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Bapatla against the petitioner, for recovery of amount, on the strength of a promissory note, dated 17-09-2007. The petitioner denied the execution of the promissory note. The trial of the suit commenced and Pws.1 to 4 were examined. The petitioner filed I.A.No.706 of 2012 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short ‘the Act’), with a prayer to send the disputed promissory note for comparison by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad and I.A.No.705 of 2012 with a request to permit him to give his specimen signatures in the open Court. Through separate orders, dated 12-122012, the trial Court dismissed both the applications observing that the petitioner is likely to put his signatures in a different manner, since there is gap of about more than five years between the date of promissory note and the date of filing of applications. Hence, these two revisions.

¶5

Heard Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶6

While the suit was filed in the year 2010, an application under Section 45 of the Act, was filed in the year 2012. The petitioner did not enclose any undisputed, or contemporaneous documents. The trial Court apprehended that the petitioner may put his signature in a totally different manner from the one that is present on the document. Though the Expert can certainly identify the genuinity, or otherwise of such signatures depending on the slant and manner of writing, the petitioner can obviate the apprehension of the Court and parties by submitting the contemporaneous documents, if any. Even the respondent can

¶7

indicate the documents, if any, including those pertaining to loan applications, or application submitted for availing the benefit under any schemes of the Government etc.

¶8

Hence, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to file fresh application by enclosing contemporaneous documents. The miscellaneous petition filed in these revision petitions shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶9

_____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶10

Dated:12-04-2013 Nvl

Thota Sivaiah v. Kancharla Gurubrahmam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thota Sivaiah v. Kancharla Gurubrahmam

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

K.Anjappa, Vs The Project Director

Palem Aruna, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

P.S.N.Reddy, Vs The A.P.S.R.T.C.

S. Goverdhan, Vs Apsrtc

P.v.K.Rao, Vs The A.P.S.R.T.C.

M. M. Reddy, Vs The Executive Director (Ghz), Apsrtc