Dismissed

Takkella Radhakrishnaiah, v. Ganipaineni Nagaraju

Telangana HC23 Dec 2016CRP/1698/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application for scientific examination of a promissory note. The court held that sending the document for expert analysis was a futile exercise due to the non-availability of experts in India to determine dating discrepancies.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Takkella Radhakrishnaiah, Vs Ganipaineni… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1698 OF 2016

¶3

% 23^rd December, 2016

¶4

Takkella Radhakrishnaiah and two others

¶5

… Petitioners..

¶6

AND

¶7

$ Ganipaineni Nagaraju

¶8

… Respondent

¶9

! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri P. Sridhar Reddy

¶10

^ Counsel for the respondent : Sri P. Subash
< Gist:
> Head Note:

¶11

? Cases referred: 1. 2014 (1) ALD 521 2. AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2010

¶12

1971 (1) SCC 396

¶13

2010 lawSuit (mad) 991

¶14

2012 LawSuit (Mad) 1688

¶15

2013 LawSuit (Mad) 1195

¶16

2014 LawSuit(Mad) 2270

¶17

2013 LawSuit (Mad) 2533

¶18

2012 LawSuit (Mad) 2538 10. 2010 LawSuit (Mad) 3979

¶19

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1698 of 2016

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the docket order dated 08.03.2016 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Nellore in I.A.No.146 of 2016 in O.S.No.177 of 2011.

¶23

The case of the petitioner is that the signatures and the matter in the promissory note dated 20.02.2010 were filled up on different dates. He filed an Application seeking to send the same for scientific examination through experts. That Application came to be dismissed, taking into consideration the judgment rendered by this Court in Kambala Nageswara Rao v Kesava Balakrishna¹ , wherein it has been noticed that as of date, no expert is available to determine such aspect.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon Paragraph 10 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in T. Nagappa v Y.R. Muralidhar² , whereunder, in similar circumstances, the Application of this nature came to be allowed.

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, apart

¶26

from the judgment in Union of India v Jyoti Prakash Mitter³ , had placed reliance on plethora of judgments rendered by Madras

¶27

High Court in R. Jagadeesan v N. Ayyasamy and ANR⁴ , K. Vairavan v Selvaraj⁵ , Selvaraj v Kolandayee⁶ , A. Thiyagarajan v G. Ramachandran⁷ , Dhanalakshmi Mills Ltd., v R.

¶28

1 2014 (1) ALD 521

¶29

2 AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2010

¶30

3 1971 (1) SCC 396

¶31

4 2010 lawSuit (mad) 991

¶32

5 2012 LawSuit (Mad) 1688

¶33

6 2013 LawSuit (Mad) 1195

¶34

7 2014 LawSuit(Mad) 2270

¶35

¶36

Krishnamurthy and Ors.,⁸ , R. Tharmambal v V. Christopher Moni Prakash⁹ and V. Makesan v T. Dhanalakshmi¹⁰ , wherein

¶37

taking into account and consideration the non-availability of the scientific expert in the country to determine whether a particular document is written on a particular date or on different dates, opined that sending such document to the experts is only a futile exercise. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the judgment dated 19.03.2010 in S.L.P. (Criminal) 2033 of 2010 filed by N. Ayyasamy against R. Jagadeesan, the judgment in R. Jagadeesan’s case (4 supra) stands confirmed on account of the dismissal of the said S.L.P. It may also be noticed that in R. Jagadeesan’s case (4 supra) the judgment T. Nagappa case (2 Supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner was also considered. In the absence of the scientific expert, even if the argument of the petitioner was to be considered, on account of the impracticability involved, it would be only a futile exercise. In that view of the matter, the order of the lower Court does not call for any interference. Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶40

_____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J.

¶41

Date:23.12.2016 Ssv

¶42

8 2013 LawSuit (Mad) 2533

¶43

9 2012 LawSuit (Mad) 2538

¶44

10 2010 LawSuit (Mad) 3979

Takkella Radhakrishnaiah, v. Ganipaineni Nagaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Takkella Radhakrishnaiah, v. Ganipaineni Nagaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kameswari and Kinnera a/C theatres - Maddilapalem Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Gowri Shankar Theatre, a/c. Guntur, Guntur District Rep. Vs .The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

Rama Krishna Theatre Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Pudi Subramanyam Vs Pan Ramanaiah

Kanniar Sreenivasa Ayyanagar Venkatesh Vs Chaluvadi Venkatasubba Rao

R. Rajaiah Vs v. Bhanu Prasad