Dismissed

V.D.S. Prasad v. v. Gokul Chand

Telangana HC7 Jan 2020CRP/1076/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge dismissed a civil revision petition filed under Article 227 challenging the dismissal of an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for expert comparison of signatures, holding that the lack of contemporaneous signatures from defendants with a time gap of two to three years rendered the order correct.

What the court decided

AI extract

V.D.S. Prasad Vs v. Gokul Chand — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Dr . JUSTI CE SHAMEEM AKTHER CI VI L REVI SI ON PETI TI ON No.1 0 7 6 OF 2 0 1 9

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff No.1 aggrieved by the docket order dated 01.04.2019 passed in I.A.No.394 of 2018 in O.S.No.530 of 2009 by the V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, whereby the application filed by the revision petitioner/ plaintiff No.1 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, to send the disputed signatures on suit pronotes for comparison of the same with the admitted signatures, was dismissed.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ plaintiff No.1 and perused the record.

¶5

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that expert opinion with regard to the disputed and admitted signatures is necessary for determination of the subject suit, which is filed for recovery of money. Even though the suit is filed in the year 2009, the subject Interlocutory Application is filed in the year 2018. The Court below ought to have allowed the Interlocutory Application to come to a just conclusion but it has erroneously dismissed the same. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on a decision reported in Ban de Siva Sh an k ar a Sr in ivasa Pr asad v. Ravi Su r y a Pr ak ash an d ot h er s¹ and prayed to allow the civil revision petition as prayed for.

¶6

It is evident from the record that earlier the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.513 of 2012 seeking the similar relief, wherein the Court below

¶7

1 2016(2) ALD

¶8

¶9

directed the defendants to file contemporaneous signatures but the same was not materialised. Thereafter, the subject Interlocutory Application is filed. As per the record, no contemporaneous signatures of defendants are available to send them for comparison with the disputed signatures on the suit pronotes.

¶10

In Ban de Siva Sh an k ar a Sr in ivasa Pr asad’s case (supra) , it was observed that the Court is however not barred from sending the disputed handwriting/ signature for comparison to an expert merely because the time gap between the admitted handwriting/ signature and the disputed handwriting/ signature is long. The Court must however endeavour to impress upon the petitioning party that comparison of disputed handwritings/ signatures with admitted handwritings/ signatures, separated by a time gap of 2 to 3 years, would be desirable so as to facilitate expert comparison in accordance with satisfactory standards.

¶11

In the instant case, contemporaneous signatures of the defendant with the time gap of two to three years are not available. Therefore, the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.

¶12

Even if the subject I.A.No.394 of 2019 is allowed, it would not yield any fruitful result and it would be an empty formality. For the aforesaid reasons, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the subject Interlocutory Application. The civil revision petition does not merit consideration.

¶13

¶14