Allowed

Sri. Shankrerlal Agarwal v. Sri. Gorla Srinivas

Telangana HC5 Mar 2021CRP/693/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chief Justice Challa Kodanda Ram allowed a civil revision petition against the dismissal of a Section 45 Indian Evidence Act application. The bench held that while no hard time limit exists, the delay was significant yet the application was allowed with a 4-week deadline for handwriting comparison and a penalty.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition allowed; costs of Rs. 25,000 imposed; senior civil judge directed to send disputed documents for handwriting expert within four weeks.

Sri. Shankrerlal Agarwal Vs Sri. Gorla… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA}

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA^RAM

¶6

CIVIL REVISI ON PETITION NO: 693 oF 2020

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution^{of lndia, aggrieved by the Order} dated.13.02.2020^passed in l. A. No. 393^{of 2019 in O.S' No 246 of 2007 on the file} of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Bhongir,^{Nalgonda District.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri Shankrerlal Agaruval, S/o. Late^{lt4anchand, aged about 75 years,} Occ. Business, R/o.H.No. 7-45, Gundlapally^{Village, Yadagirigutta Village and} Mandal Nalgonda District,Telangana State.

¶10

...Petitioner/PlaintiffiPetitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

Sri Gorla Srinivas, S/o. Late Gorla Narsaiah,^{age 35 years, Occ. Business,} Rio. 6-13, Hanuman Veedhi, Yadagirigutta^{Village and Mandal,} Nalgonda District. Telangana State.

¶13

Smt Gorla Sathamma(died), Nalgonda.

¶14

3, Smt Boda Buchamma, W/o. Boda Buchaiah,^{R/o. Gandhi Nagar, tvlainRoad,} Yadagirigutta Village and l.llandal, Nalgonda District,^{TelanganaState.}

¶15

Smt Boga Suguna, W/o. Boga Sudakar,^{Rl/o. Gouraipally Village, Rajapet} Mandal, Nalgonda District Telangana^State.

¶16

Smt. Kundaram Subadra, W/o. Kundaram^{Bala Narsimha,FIo. Sree Ram Nagar,} Near Sri Rama Temple, Rajapet Road, Gouraipally^{Village, Rajapet Mandal,} Nalgonda District, Telanana State.

¶17

Smt Gandhala Padma, W/o. Gandhala^{Hari Babu (APSEB),Fl/o. Kisan Nagar,} Bhongir, Nalgonda District,Telangana State.

¶18

Smt Yapuram Lingamma @ Bharathi, W/o. Yapuram^{Bikshapathi,Rl/o.Room No.} 10, Building No.7, Sain, Prabhadevi Road, Dadaar,^{lvlumbai,lt/aharastra,-22}

¶19

Smt Kundaram Anaramma, W/o. Kundaram Bala^{Raju. R/o.} adjacent^{to Yadagiri} Theatre, I/alakpet, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad,^{TelanganaState.}

¶20

(Respondents No. 2 to B are not necessary^parties, as they were set^ex-parte)

¶21

... Res pondents/Defeendants/Respondents

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the^{circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court^may be^{pleasedto stay all further} proceedings in O.S. No. 246 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at^Bhongir, Telangana State,^pending disposal of the above CRP.

¶24

IA NO^'.20F 2020

¶25

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed therewith,^{the High Court maybe pleasedto extend the interim} order dated 26-05-2020^{passed in l.A.No.1of 2o2o in cRP.No.693of 2020 until} further orders.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI BETHI VENKATESWARLU}

¶27

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.'t:SRI K. JAGADISHWARREDDY}

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos. 2 to 8: NONE APPEARED}

¶29

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶30

TIIE HON'BLE SRI ruSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶31

CIVIL R-EVISION PETITION No.693 of 2020

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 13.02.2020^passed by the Senior Civil Judge, at Bhongir, in.I.A.No.393 of²⁰¹⁹ in O.S.No.246^{of 2007.} By the impugned order, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed^{the application} filed by the plaintiff under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act^{seekingto sendthe} documents for comparison of signarutes by expert at State^{Forensic Laboratories,} Hyderabad.

¶34

The revision petitioner is the^plaintiff before^{the Bial Court.He filed the suit} O.S.No.246 of 2007 seeking specific^{performanceof oral agreement of sale alleging} that one Gorla Narsaiah who is the father of^{respondentNos'1,3 to 8, issuedExs'Al} to 44 Receipts while he was alive,^{agreeingto registerthesaledeed in favour of the} petitioner in respect ofthe suit schedule property as^the entke^{sale considerationwas} paid to Gorla Narsaiah. The respondents/defendants^{filed a writtenstatement} disputing the execurion of Exs.A1 to^{44 contending that the signarureson Exs.A1 to} A4 were not tallying with each other^{andfurther they are totallyinconsistentwith} the signarure of Gorla Natsaiah^{as containedin theregisteredby GorlaNarsaiahin} respect of another^{property under Ex.A12. The said applicarion was dismissedby} the impugned order by^{the trial Court observingthat comparisonof signatureswill} not be of any help to^{the plaintiffscase as the plaintiff has to prove the oral} agleement of sale^{and not thesignatures;and further it is the respondentswhohave} taken the^ground of^{forgery and therefore it is for the respondentsto plovesuch} allegation of forgery;^{and further the applicationhas been filed after 17 t/z years of} filing of the written^statement.

¶35

Heard Sri Bethi^{Venkateshwarlu,learned counsel for the revision} pe{ltielerlplaintiff; and^Srt K. Jagadeeswar^{Rao, learned counsel for the} respondents/defendants.

¶36

Leamed counsel for the^{petitioner/plaintiff relied on the judgmentof this} Court in Murti Redrly Tirupathi^{Reddyv. T. LingaReddy',and contendsthat the} trial Court ought not to have dismissed^{the application of the plaintiff fol sending the} documents Exs.Al to .A4 for comparison of^{signaturesby expert.}

¶37

Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants^{contends that the trial Court} had rightly dismissed the application of the^{plaintiffand thesame does not warant} interference of this Court.

¶38

It may be noted that the^plaintiffis relying on the^{Exs.Alto A'4 whicharethe} Receipts advanced by Gorla Narsaiah in proofofthe alieged oral^{agreement between} Gorla Narsaiah and the plaintiff. Further, it is the specific allegation of^the defendants that the alleged signatures of their father Gorla Narsaiah, on the receipts Exs.Al to A4, are not tallying with each other and also with the signature their father as contained in Ex.A12 which is a registered sale deed in respect of another house property, and therefore the allegation of the respondents is that the Exs.Al to A4 are forged documents.

¶39

This Court in Mudi Reddy Tirupathi Reddy (l supra) while dealing with a similar issue, had referred to the^judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Janachaitanya Honsing Limilg6 v. Divya Financiers2, wherein the Division Bench ofthis Court had the occasion to delve upon and answer the following reference:

¶40

"Whether an application under Section⁴⁵ of the Evidence Act filed for sending the signatures for comparison and expert opinion, can be entertained at the later stage, including when coming up for arguments after entire trial?"

¶41

The Hon' ble Division Bench had answered the reference as under:

¶42

"No time could be fixed for filing applications under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending tle disputed signature or wri^:ngs to the handwriling expert for comparison and opinion and

¶43

'zots 1oy^{nlr srz}

¶44

'^zoos 1:1^{nrr aos} 1oa;

¶45

same shall be left open to the^{discretion of the court; for exercisitg} such discretion when^{exigencies so demand, dependingupon the} facts and circumstances ofthe^{each case"'}

¶46

In view ofthe law laid down^{in Janachaitanya(2 supra), thoughtherecannot} be any hard and fast rule^{withrespectto time limitfor filing of applicationunder} Section 45 0f the Indian^{EvidenceAct, it is left to the courtsdiscretion,to be} exercised^judiciously, in allowing^{such applicationsbasingon the facts ofeach case.}

¶47

In that view of the matter,^{takinginto considerationof the facts of the present} case, in view of the^{inordinate delay of 11%years in approaching the courtand} considering the fervent^{prayer of the petitioners that the petitionmay be allowed, this} court considers it appropriate^{to imposecostsof Rs.25,000/-while allowingthe civil} revision petition.

¶48

Accordingly, the civil^{revision petition is allowed withcosts of Rs.25,000/-} payable to the defendants. on^{flling proofofpaymentof costs beforethe trial Court,} the learned Senior Civil^{Judgeshall send the disputed documentsfor handwriting} expert. The entire^{exerciseshall be completedwithinfour weeks from the date of} receipt of a copy^{of this order.Miscellaneouspetitions, if any pending' shall stand} closed.

¶49

ASSTSPXFTS$JII'+'jil //TRUE^COPY// ,\-,

¶50

SECTTON^OFFICER

¶51

To '1 . 2 3 6:'q"{E:"1# One CC^{to Sri K j[:qf Jagadtsnv} #ffi:t[i'J;:*::l]ij'''i, 4. Two^{CD CoPies} MMK gbr

¶52

HIGH COURT

¶53

DATED:0510312021

¶54

ORDER