Dismissed

S.Harshavardhan Reddy v. Vemula Ram Reddy

Telangana HC15 Jul 2014CRP/2041/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition regarding the refusal of an application for handwriting analysis under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court held that the petitioner was negligent in filing the application after evidence closure when the disputed fact was evident from the respondent's 2008 written statement, violating principles of diligence required for early case di

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 45 dismissed; CRPMP disposed of as infructuous.

S.Harshavardhan Reddy Vs Vemula Ram Reddy — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

C.R.P.No.2041 of 2014

¶3

Date : 15-7-2014

¶4

Between : S. Harshavardhan Reddy .. Petitioner And Vemula Ram Reddy .. Respondent

¶5

Counsel for petitioner : Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy Counsel for respondent : --

¶6

The Court made the following:

¶7

ORDER :

¶8

This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 10-6-2014 in I.A.No.1075 of 2013 in O.S.No.633 of 2007 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar.

¶9

The petitioner filed the above mentioned suit for specific performance of agreement of sale. The respondent filed a written statement wherein he has admitted the execution of agreement of sale and also receipt of monies under Exs.A-3 to A-5. However, the respondent has specifically denied receipt of Rs.15 lakhs on 31-10-2013 in respect of which the petitioner has filed the receipt marked as Ex.A-2. The petitioner has let in oral evidence and after closure of the evidence on his side, the evidence of the respondent/defendant was also let in and the same was closed. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1075 of 2013 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short "the Act") for sending Exs.A-1 to A-7 documents to handwriting expert. The said application was dismissed by the lower Court.

¶10

On the admitted facts of the case, the respondent

¶11

denied receipt of a sum of Rs.15 lakhs as far back as 12-22008 when he has filed his written statement. The petitioner never made any attempt to get the disputed document referred to handwriting expert till completion of trial. Though delay may not be the sole factor in considering the application under Section 45 of the Act, on the facts of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is completely negligent in pursuing his cause.

¶12

Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in Chityalgundameede Ramalakshmamma Vs. Ediga

¶13

Rangamma (died) by L.Rs .^[1] in support of his submission that an application for sending the document to handwriting expert for opinion can be made after closing of evidence. I have perused the Judgment in Chityalgundameede Ramalakshmamma (1-supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In that case, the defendant filed an application for sending the suit document to handwriting expert after closure of the evidence on the plaintiffs’ side. The lower Court has dismissed the said application. While reversing the said order, this Court placing reliance on the Judgment on Guru Govindu Vs. Devarapu Venkataramana^[2] observed that as the defendant failed to elicit anything incriminating with regard to genuineness of Ex.A-1 from the cross-examination of the plaintiffs’ witness,

¶14

she has come out with the application for sending the suit document for expert’s opinion.

¶15

In the present case, the petitioner, who is the plaintiff, very much knew the stand of the respondent/defendant as reflected in the written statement filed in the year 2008 itself. No person of ordinary prudence would expect the defendant to come out with a different version in his oral evidence from the one taken by him in the written statement. Therefore, the petitioner has no reason to have waited till completion of the evidence and file the application at his leisure after the entire evidence was closed. If such a course is permitted, the endeavour of the courts for early disposal of the cases will be frustrated. This Court is more concerned about the utter lack of diligence on the part of the petitioner in filing the application for sending the documents for the opinion of handwriting expert, than the mere length of delay in seeking the said relief. On the facts of this case I do not find any reasonable excuse for the petitioner for not filing the application before the commencement of the evidence.

¶16

For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the Civil Revision Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶17

As a sequel to the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, CRPMP No.2865 of 2014 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶18

Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy

Date : 15-7-2014

L.R. copies