Dismissed

Gudimetla Rama Krishna Reddy, v. Uddaraju Srinivasa Udaya Kumar Varrna

Telangana HC7 Apr 2017CRP/1696/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application to send a promissory note to a handwriting expert. The court rejected the view that the lower court made an error of jurisdiction, holding that parties cannot compel reliance on signatures potentially disguised in open court documents.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs awarded.

Gudimetla Rama Krishna Reddy, Vs Uddaraju… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1696 of 2017

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This Revision is filed challenging the order dt.23-12-2016 in I.A.No.743 of 2016 in O.S.No.356 of 2011 of the III Additional District Judge, Bhimvaram.

¶4

Petitioner herein is defendant in the suit. The respondent filed the suit against him for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note Ex.A-1.

¶5

Petitioner filed I.A.No.743 of 2016 invoking Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short “the Act”) praying for sending of the suit promissory note to a Government Handwriting Expert for getting his opinion after comparing the signature purporting to that of the petitioner on promissory note with the specimen signatures of petitioner taken in open Court or signatures on vakalat and written statement.

¶6

The respondent opposed the application on the ground that there is no necessity to send the documents to an Expert since the Court itself is empowered to consider the signatures under Section 73 of the Act.

¶7

By order dt.23-12-2016, the Court below dismissed the said I.A. It held that other than the vakalat, written statement and specimen signatures taken in open Court, no other documents containing signatures of petitioner were produced for comparison by

¶8

MSR,J C.R.P.No.1696 of 2017

¶9

¶10

petitioner; there is every possibility of petitioner disguising his signature in the vakalat, written statement or in the specimen signatures to be taken in the open Court and no useful purpose would be served by sending it to an Handwriting Expert.

¶11

Challenging the same, this Revision is filed.

¶12

Though leaned counsel for petitioner sought to contend that this view of the Court below cannot be sustained, I am unable to agree with the said contention. If the petitioner wants comparison of his signature on the suit promissory note with other signatures of his, he must be able to produce either contemporaneous documents or other documents containing his admitted signatures and he cannot compel the Court to rely on the signatures taken from him in the open Court or the signatures put by him in the vakalat and written statement, which could have been disguised by the petitioner.

¶13

I, therefore, do not find any error of jurisdiction in the order passed by the Court below warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶14

Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.

¶15

Miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Revision shall stand closed.

¶16

__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶17

Date: 07-04-2017 Vsv

Gudimetla Rama Krishna Reddy, v. Uddaraju Srinivasa Udaya Kumar Varrna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gudimetla Rama Krishna Reddy, v. Uddaraju Srinivasa Udaya Kumar Varrna

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

M/s.Maheswari Minerals, rep by its Managing partner Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by its Secretary

S.R.Y.Venkata Rayulu (died) per LRs Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

G. Pandu Vs The State of Telangana

Gudimetla Rama Krishna Reddy Vs Uddaraju Ranganadha Raju

Ponnaganti Suresh Babu, Vs Kotwala Vyoma

A.Nakuludu, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Secretary