Dismissed

Sri Jalasutram Tilak v. Sri Jagadamba Transformers

Telangana HC13 Jun 2025CRP/2425/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed revision petitions challenging the trial Court's order permitting the respondents to send disputed documents to the Forensic Science Laboratory for handwriting comparison. The Court held that the order was an exercise of discretionary power to arrive at the right conclusion and did not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference under Article 227.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Jalasutram Tilak Vs Sri Jagadamba… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

GIVIL REVI srON PETITION NO:240s & 2425 0F 2023

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITI ON NO: 2405 OF 2023

¶8

Petition Under A rticle 227 of the constitution of lndia against the order dated 0710812023 Passed in l.A.No.5t2 of 2023 in o.s.No.204 of zozz on the fite of the court of the llAddl. District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri district, at Medchal.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Sd Jalasutram Tilak, glq Sli J.L.N. Sastry Aged about 57 years, Occ. Emplolee R/o.Flat.No.1 04, Kamashi Residency- patwari Encralve, e"nar'i Nagar Road, Balanagar, Quthbullapur Mandal, Hyderabad_ 500037

¶11

Smt. Jalasutram Sarada, w/o Sri J.Tilak, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Business, R/o.Flat.No.1 04, Kamashi, Residency padari Enclave,'Candni fligar-RoiO, Balanagar, Quthbullapur Mandal Hycierabad-500037

¶12

...REVISION PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS

¶13

AND

¶14

Sri Jagadamba Transformers, Rep. by its partners Smt. Nagarapu Shobha, Managing .Pg(ner and_Sri Nagarapu Rajeswara Swamy Haiing its i; Registered Offi-ce at _ Plot.No. 54,A- Ledp lnd.Estate, GalutaraFrararir Quthbullapur Mandal Hyderabad - 500072 (ii) Factory af . f_t , Sotfrwbst Shed, Plot.no.1, IDA Gandhinagal Near Sivaji Statue, Balanagar, Quthbullapur Mandal Hyderabad-500037.

¶15

Smt.Nagarapu Shoba, Wo. N.Rajeswara Swamv Aqed about 51 vears. Occ Managing fg$-e1_of No.'t R/o.H.No.12 -6 -2tB7,VivAk Nagar Xurltapity,-^-- Hyderabad-500072

¶16

Sri. Nagarapu Rajeswara 9*qryV., S/o. Late.N.Venkata Narasiah Aged about 56 years, Occ. Partner of No.'1 R/o.H.N o.12-6-2187, Vivek Nagar fJtataptty, Hyderabad-500072

¶17

...RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS

¶18

lA NO: 1 oF 2023

¶19

Petition under section.l.5-1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, ffii;s; b-ourt..ay be preased to stay all turther^proceedinos in o s. No.204 ;i rbrt";ih" fire of the , Addr District and sessions Judge, Meichar-Markajigiri or.tri.r-"i rtr"jchar, incruding the stay of the ;,,il,;ifi Hlil:;,',.. oy tn6 is I i" ti." l"i".J "l 1,.ii.", rl"oj* ii#"!,,

¶20

CIVIL REVISION PETITIONN O:2425 OF 2023

¶21

Petition Under Arlicre 227 0f the constitution of rndia against the order dated 0710812023^passed 1.A.No.574 0f 2023 in o.s.ru".zoq of 20220n the fire of the fi:::r:l the il Addt Drstrict and S"ssr.ons LrJg", il"o.nrt_Matkajsiri district, at

¶22

Between:

¶23

1 Sri Jalasutram Tilak. S/o.. Sri J.L.N Sastry Aged about 57 years, Occ. tmployee R/o.FIat.No ro+, .Kamalhi niii6ni,vrlit*ari Enctave, Gandhi Nagar Road. Ba ta nasar. o uthd;ii;il;' il""rirL ulloJrload_500037

¶24

2 Smt. Jalasutram Sarada w/o Sri J.Tilak, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Business. R/o.FlatNo. l04 Kamasiri neiioencv-pjti,i;; H".il; Gandhi Nagar Road, Batanasa r, Quthbu[apur Ma noai Hyi,eia6Ii:50bij57,,

¶25

...REVISION PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS

¶26

AND

¶27

1 Sri Jagadamba Transformers, Rep. by its partners Smt. Nagarapu Shobha, Managing^partner and Sri Nagarapu nrlu."i"-SIrv Having its: i) Registered Offic6 at . pfot.il". b+rq_L# tnd Estate, Galuta.ramaram e u-thbultapu r Mandai nvJ"rroroliSoozz ,) l-actory at : F-'1, Sothwest Shed, plot.no 1, f Oe CrnOninrgar, , i'|vu'INear Sivaiiv var' Statue, Batanagar, euthbulapur rvtanoaL iyierruJ:idooe?]-

¶28

2 Smt.Nagarapu Shoba. Wo.N.Rajeswara Swamy Aged about 51 years, Occ. HffSgff.l;#;;ror^{No 1 R/o Hft; ii-o'-2"i6;:'\iiG'k-ri,sarKukaiaprry}

¶29

J i?J'j,fl^p.:f i"r'#?'&'-::i{,".1,:.."1?t_yifl",f^{#fl K:lii,i??:,:',ff} :

¶30

,RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS

¶31

lA NO: 2 oF 2023

¶32

Petition under section 1.51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support ot a'rurtherproceedinosinoS-No_.204;irbr;;;i;"tfireoftherrAddr ttre petitiJn]i#i;il b-ourt may be pteased to Stay Sessions Judge, Mejchat-Matkajigiri Ol.r"i-ri ir,i"icnat, inctuding the DistrictandStav of the ;,,il,1Hl:l:1",,.^{ov tn6ts[, in il;l;t;*.i or Justice,plndingdisposar}

¶33

lA NO: 1 oF 2023

¶34

Petition under Sectioa 1s1..cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support ot tne peirtio'n, inliign court may be preased to drspense wirh rhe fitino of tl:^9e-tifi;d "ofy oitn. Decree and Order dt.07_08_ 2023 passed in I.R.No.6zl of 2023 in o.s.liri.z-oe"oizozzpassed by the Hon,bre , Addt. District and Sessions "ruOge, MJJai Ir,'rinr;gi..i district, at Medchat, rn the interest of justice.

¶35

Counsel for the petitioners in both C.R.p.s: SRI K JAMALI

¶36

Gounsel for the Respondents:

¶37

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶38

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶39

C.R.P. No s.2 405 and 2 425 of 2023

¶40

COMMON o RDER:

¶41

Since, these Civil Revision petitions arise between the sarre partic's ard are di.ected agai.st the commo, orrrer dated 07-08-2023 passed in I.A.Nos.5l2 and 574 of 2023 in O.S.No.204 <tt' 2022 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judgc. Nlcdcha I-Malkajgiri District at Medchal, they arc hcing dispt,sed ol by this common order.

¶42

l'he Revision petitioners herein are respondents in the unclerlyi,g Inrcrlocurory Applications and plaintiftb in the suit filed 1'or rccovcr-, ol'rnoney.

¶43

i. [n the suh jecl suit, the respondents herein filed LA.No.5 l2 ol 2023 and I.,{.No.574 ol l0l3 under Seoion l5l C.p.C. r/w Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to reopen the suit and to send Ex.A-ll along rvith I:xs.A_4 to z_6, A_g, A_10 and A_17 to the Forcusic Sciencc [_aborator.y (FSL), Hyderabad to be compaled by the handwriting Expert to give opinion about the disputed signature on Ex.A- I l.

¶44

¶45

¶46

were 4. The said underlying Interlocutory^Applications opposed by the petitioners herein by filing^{counterclaimingthat} since, the applications filed by the respondents herein earlier^to receive expert opinion issued b5, Truth Labs having been^rejccted by the Court, by observing that the said report^{has been obtainecl} by respondent themselves pending the suit^{without the} knowledge of the petitioners herein, the respondents^{herein havc'} come up with the underlying Interlocutory Applications

¶47

The petitioners herein fufther contended that^thc respondents have filed the underlying Interlocutory^Applications before the trial Court only to get orders in dnlr 6un,,".^{to deprivc} the petitioners lrom recovering the amounts due^{in the suit fllccl} by thenr

¶48

Petitioners further contend that since.the^{earlier applications} filed by the respondents to receive the expert^{opinionhavine} been dismissed vide I.A.Nos.416 and⁴¹⁷ of^{2023, thc sarne} would operate as res^judicata

¶49

The triat Court by considering the underlying^{Interlocutor)'} Applications filed by the respondents^{under Section.15 oi thc} lndian E1!-dence Act requesting to reopen the suit^{and to sendthe}

¶50

¶51

documents to FSL lor comparison and also taking note of the fact that the respondents herein obtained an opinion flom the Truth Labs on their orvn earlier, however, noting that the petitioners herein are equally contesting the proceeding and vehemently disputing the handwriting on Ex.A_ I l, had observed that the since. said document has come from the custody of the petitioners/plaintitls, the same cannot override the right of the other party. The trial Cour-t also rook note of the objection of the petitioners herc'in as to the said document Ex.A_ I I having been marked withour anl,objecrion 1br the respondents herein to file thc underly,ing Interlocutorv Applications seeking fbr sending the same to IrSL for.comparison, helcl that since, the respondents are disputing rhe documcnts, burden belng on them and if they fail to attack the docuurent and disprove the handwr.iting, ther.e is every likelihood of accepting the document, which would cause loss to the respondents. accordingly, accepted the contentions of the respondents in liling the r-rrrder.lying Inrerlocutory Applications. Thus, the trial (toun had allowed the underlying Interlocutory Applications.

¶52

¶53

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

¶54

On behalf of the petitioners, it is vehernently contended that the trial Court ought not to have allowed the underlying Interlocutory Applications and that too when the suit is posted fol arguments, as the intentior-r ol the respondents herein is ouly' to drag on the matter; and that the respondents herein have not raised any objection to Ex.A-ll when the sarne is being markcd. lt is to be noted that the trial Court taking note of the lact that Ex.A-I1 is a docurnent thal has been marked by the petitioners herein rvhile thc lcspondents are disputing the genuineness of the sarne, the burden being on them to disprove the colrcctness o[ the said document and also taking note of the lact that the respondents hercin having fited applications earlier of obtaining report from the Truth Labs and the said applications having been dismissed by the Court on the ground that the said report "vas obtained by the respondents themselves without the knowledge of the petitioners herein, had found it appropriate to allorv the underlying Interlocutory Applications^permitting the respondents herein ro r.nrEx.A-i I^{along with} Exs.A-5 to 4.-6,^A-8, A-l0

¶55

¶56

¶57

and A- I 7 to F SL lbr cornparison of handwriting. .fhus, the arguments advanced by the petition ers of re s juclicata would not apply

¶58

I0. F urthcr, the trial Court b_v exercising the discretionary power cor.rlbrred on it had allowed the [nterlocutory Applications. which in the considered view of this Crturl, would only resulr in the C_.ourt lrriving at a right conclusion while adjudicatin-u the suit filed by the petitioners lor recovery of the amount lron r the respondents. The nrere fact of thr, respondents filing applicrrrions a1 the time of argurnents .r,ould not by itself a reason for the petitioner.s to f-eel aggrieved by the action of the trial Court in allou,ing the said applications and pcrrnitting the respondents to send the :rlirresaid docurnents Lo F_SL for comparison rvith other. adnritted Exhibits, as such opinion fumished by the FSL aurhoriries would only result in the Court arriving at a right decision.

¶59

I l. In view ol'the above, this Court is of the view that the order of the trial Court cannot be said to be enoneous or suffering fi'om any infir',rity warranting interf-erence by this court in

¶60

¶61

exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Afticle Z2l ol the

¶62

Constitution of India.

¶63

Therefore, these Civil Revision petitions are devoid ol

¶64

merit and are accordingly dismissed. No costs

¶65

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall

¶66

stand closed

¶67

Sd/- S. MALLIKARJUNA^RAO SISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

ll Addl. District and Sessions Judge,^{Medchal-Malkajgiridistrict, at Medchal}

¶72

One CC to SRI K JAMALI Advocate [OPUC]

¶73

J"^TwoCDCopies

SS/PSL

Yt-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1310612025

COMMON ORDER

CRP.Nos.2405 & 2425 of 2023

¶81

.1
B lrlE Si4 ,r€
]
)
2 B AUE 2025
.\ );
/) .^ .- t .
;'!'1f:\t;'
- -,,'

¶82

DISMISSING BOTH THE C.R.P.s

¶83

WITHOUT COSTS

¶84

6-e@ Y{--pft6'

Sri Jalasutram Tilak v. Sri Jagadamba Transformers

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Jalasutram Tilak v. Sri Jagadamba Transformers

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. G. Vasantha Reddy@ G. Vasantha Vs The State of Telangana

A Rajinikanth Vs The State of Telangana

M/s.Kavuri Hills Developers Private Limited Vs The Station House Officer

Sri. Kurva Anjaneyulu Vs The State of Telanagana

Bingannapally Bhagya Vs T.Satyanarayana

Mohd.Ibrahim (Since died) his L.Rs Vs Jani Begum