Dismissed

Kasidi Vijaya, v. Katam Ravinder Reddy

Telangana HC6 Sept 2024CRP/2720/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Judge Bench of the High Court of Telangana dismissed a Civil Revision Petition seeking stay of proceedings in an OS under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Trial Court denied the request for expert opinion on handwriting forgery due to lack of contemporaneous signatures and uncorroborated allegations, a view the High Court upheld, distinguishing a cited precedent and finding no r

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs; CRP No.272O of 2024 along with all other connected applications is dismissed.

Kasidi Vijaya, Vs Katam Ravinder Reddy — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:272O OF 2024

¶6

Petition Under Ariicle 227 of Constitution of lndia against the docket order dated 14-06-2024 in LA.No. 332 of 2024 in O.S.No. 2670 ol 2022 on tl-re file of the Court of the lAdditional Junior Civil Judge cum lAdditional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hanumakonda.

¶7

Between.

¶8

Kasidi Vijaya, Wo, Sudharshan Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Occu Businiess,

¶9

Kasidi Sudershan Reddy, S/o. Narasimha Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Occu Business

¶10

Both are R/o H.No.'l-59, Ramanjapur Village, Venkatapur Mandal, [Vlulug District, ...PETITIONERS/ DEFENDANTS

¶11

AND

¶12

Katam Ravinder Reddy,, Sio. Thirupathi Reddy, Aged about 57 years, Occu Business, R/o H No 1-7-92O, Advocates Colony, Hanumakonda City and District ...RESPONDENT/ Plaintiff

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶14

Petition under Section^'15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S No.2670 of 2024 on the file I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition and pass

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. KARRA V. V. S. N. MURTHY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: NONE APPEARED

¶17

The Court made the following Order:

¶18

¶19

HON'BLE^{JUSTICE MOUSHTIIWBHATTACHARYA}

¶20

CTVIL RE\IISION PETITI^{ON No.2720of 2o24}

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

The Civil Revision^{Petition(CRP) arises out of an orderdated} 14.06.2024^{whereby theApplication frled by thePeutloners} (defendants in the^{Suit) undersection 45 of The lndian Evidence Act'} L872 (1872^{Act) was dismissed'}

¶23

The Trial Court^{dismissedthe Applicationon the groundt].at} tJre petitioners^{did not frle anycontemporarysignature pertaioingto} the year of^{Agreementof Sale whichformed the basis of the} petitioners' application^{underscction 45 of the 1872 Act' The Trial} Courtwasa]sooftheviewt}ratsendingthedisputeddocumentfor expert opinion^{would hence not serve anypurpose'}

¶24

karned counsel^{appearingfor the petitionersubmits that the} absence of contemporaneous^{signature cannot be a sole gr'ound for} dismissing the^{petitioners' applicationand relied on a decisionof a} Co-ordinate Bench^{of this Court inPVenkatromanaVs'} M.Venkataramonal^-

¶25

Upon perusal^{of the impugned order and the material rln record'} it appears that the^{petitioners herein are the defendalts in a Suit filed} by the respondent^{for recovery ofRs lO'71'158/-ag'ainstthe} petitioners and for awarding^{costs of the Suit-}

¶26

'2009^{(s) ALT 113 (S.8.)}

¶27

MB,J CRP-No.272O ol 2024

¶28

Paragraph V of the plaint refers to an Agreement of Sale^of Vehicle which tJ:e petitioners executed in favour of^the respondent/plaintiff in the^presence of^{witnesses.The plaintifPscase} is that the plaintiff incurred a loss of a substantial amount of^money for repairing the vehicle.

¶29

The defendalts filed their Written Statement and also^{filed an} application under section 45 of the^{1,872 Act soonthereafter alleging} that the Agreement of Sale dated 23.07.2C21^{is a forgeddocument.} The petitioners accordingly sought to^{make an application for opinion} of an expert with regard to the alleged^forgery.

¶30

Section 45 of the 1872 Act^provides a Court^{referring a rnatter} for expert opinion including on the^identity of^{the haldwritingto} persons who are specially skilled on that point and where tJ:e identity of the handwriting is of relevance^{before the Court.}

¶31

In the present case, the hnding^{given in} the^{impugrred order is} that the^petitioners did not hle any^{contemporarysignatures} pertaining to the same year as that of the Agreement of Sale i.e.,2O2lThe Court accordingly found that there is no merit^{in tlre Application.}

¶32

Section 45 of the 1872 Act makes it clear that the^{Court must} come to a hnding that an opinion is required to be^{givenby an expert} onY^point in substance before it. The onus^{is on the applicaltwho}

¶33

¶34

MB,J CRP.No.272O o.f 2024

¶35

(

¶36

¶37

makes t].e application under section 4s of the rgr2 Act to inform the Court to form an opinion that experts are required to give their opinion in the matter.

¶38

In ttre present case, it appears that the petitioners sr.rrply frled an application for referring the handwriting to a Handwritillg Expert without arry other evidence to show that the Agreement of SaIe is a forged document. The petitioners, application seems to be rnerely arr application without any corroborative documents.

¶39

This Court hence finds that the view taken by the Trial Court is correct arld there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

¶40

P-venkatramana(supra) does not assrst [he petitioners since paragraph 4 of that decision clearly records that the Court had also considered the dilference between the signatures of the petidoner in the Vaka-lat arld the Written Statement as well as the on the Promissory Notes. The contemporaneous signature was thr second point which was diluted by the Co_ordinate Bench.

¶41

Admittedly in this matter, apart from conremporareous signature, the petitioner could not produce any other ground to show that the petitioners' application under secrion 45 .f the 1872 Act should be allowed for raising a suspicion that the Agreement of Sale was indeed a forged document. This Coun fincls no merit in the CRp.

¶42

¶43

MB'J CRP.No.272O oJ2O24

¶44

C.R.P.No.272O^{of2024, along with allotherconnected} applications,^{is accordingly dismissed'Thereshall be no orderas to} costs. Sd,-^{P. PA}

¶45

Sd,-^{P. PA} ASS BYAN+"-EI.EFRRX

¶46

,,TRUE^COPY/' SECTION^OFFICER sis'ira'1e j:i:lf ;lii"g',,'+ffi"irti::'J;iliil:l'",*

¶47

Two^CDCoPies

I I l ;

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/09/2024

ORDER

I I

I4
/.,
(r,
I
I
i I ne lirtl zozt
{'J

¶55

CRP.No.2720 of 2024

¶56

I)IS\IISSING TI.IE CRP

¶57

\IIIIOTITCOS'fS

¶58

G)cf w6

Kasidi Vijaya, v. Katam Ravinder Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kasidi Vijaya, v. Katam Ravinder Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basati Sharath Babu Vs Basati alias Kuduthaji Shirisha

R. Krishna Reddy alias Krishna (died) Vs Gottam Sreenivas Rao

Ambala Annapurna, Vs Jangili Aruna

Polam Jaganmohan Reddy (died) Vs Lingampalli Kishan Rao

Dr. Kodam Rama Krishna Vs Singamsetti Komuraiah (died)

Smt. Zareena Begum Vs K.Kamala