Kurmana Venkata Ramana v. Jada Srinivasacharyulu
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court dismissed revisions challenging the trial court's refusal to reopen evidence for handwriting comparison. The court found no error in not comparing disputed handwriting due to clear admissions but allowed the trial court to exercise its power under Section 73 of the Evidence Act at an appropriate time.
What did the court decide?
Modifying the trial court order to allow exercise of power under Section 73 of the Evidence Act before judgment; Revisions dismissed.
What the court decided
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2150 OF 2016 &
CIVIL REVISION PETITION (SR) No.11583 OF 2016
COMMON ORDER:
These two revisions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 15.02.2016 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, in I.A.Nos.13 and 14 of 2016 in O.S. No.346 of 2014, whereby the request of the petitioner to reopen the evidence of the petitioners for comparison of disputed signature with the admitted signatures by the Court by exercising the power under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, ‘the Act’) were dismissed.
02. The suit was filed based on the promissory note dated 14.10.2011. The petitioner/ defendant in the suit raised a specific plea that there is a material alteration of promissory note and the figure 10 is altered as 14 which voids the document. The plaintiff and defendant adduced evidence and the suit was posted for arguments. At this stage, the petitioner felt that it is necessary to reopen the matter to compare the admitted hand writing of P.W.2 with the disputed hand writing. Therefore, sought to reopen the evidence and requested the presiding officer of the Court to exercise the power under Section 73 of the Act.
03. The respondents filed counter denying the material allegations, while contending that the petitioner/defendant raised a specific plea that the promissory note is a rank forged document, therefore question of comparison of disputed writing with the admitted writing does not arise and that there are no grounds to reopen the evidence of petitioner/ defendant and to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing of P.W.2.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to reopen evidence for handwriting comparison under Section 73 of the Evidence Act.
Whether the opinion expressed by the trial court regarding a material alteration was premature.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Petitioner
- respondent
Respondent
Coram
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Telangana HC
- Decided on
- · June
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRP/2150/2016
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court