The High Court disposed of a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's order dismissing an application to refer a promissory note for handwriting comparison, holding the order merited as signatures were admitted.
The civil revision petition was dismissed at the admission stage.
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 R. KANTHA RAO
CRP No.820 of 2015
Oral Order :
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner herein is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.126 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Senior Civl Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. The suit is based on a promissory note allegedly executed by the defendants. During the course of trial, the petitioner-1st defendant filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the suit promissory note for comparison of the disputed signature with the admitted signatures of the petitioner. The said petition was dismissed by the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner.
The trial Court recorded a finding that the petitioner in the written statement specifically contended that in connection with some other dispute between the parties, a ‘Panchayat’ was held before the elders and in that context signatures of the petitioner and his brother-in-law were obtained separately on some empty papers and promissory notes and that suit promissory note was fabricated on one of the said documents. Basing on the stand taken by the defendant-petitioner, the learned trial Court took the view that since signatures on the promissory notes are admitted, there is absolutely no purpose in sending the suit promissory note for the handwriting expert for comparison with the admitted signatures for opinion. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court.
The Civil Revision Petition is meritless and is dismissed
at the admission stage.
JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
Dated 27.3.2015
kk
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
CRP No.820of 2015
27-3-2015
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the dismissal of the application to send the promissory note for handwriting comparison warrants interference in a civil revision petition.
Whether there is any illegality or irregularity in the trial court's order refusing to refer the disputed signature for expert opinion.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
R. KANTHA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
