N.V. Chandra Mohan Rao v. Boinapally Srikanth
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:312 OF 2022 Petition under Article 227 oI the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order dated 31 .01.2022 in l.A. No. 26 of 2019 in O.S. No. 258 oI 2015 on the file of the Court of the lll Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. Between:
N.V. Chandra Mohan Rao, S/o. Late Sanyasi Naidu, Age 65 years, Occ Legal Practitioner, R/o. M I G-493 Baba Metta, Vijayanagaram, Vijayanagaram District. ...PETITIONER AND Boinapally Srikanth, S/o.Mohan Rao, Age 36 years, Occ Business, Rl/o.H'No.4-19215, Bhavani Nagar, Nacharam, Rangareddy District. Karimnagar. ...RESPONDENT lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in o.S.No.25812015 on the file of lll Addl. District Judge, Rangareddy at L.B. Nagar, pending disposal of the above CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. J SREENIVASA RAO, ADVOCATE Counsel forthe Respondent: NON APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.312 OF 2022 ORDER:
Aggrieved by the order dated 31.01.2022 passed in I.A.No.26 of 2Ol9 in O.S.No.2SB of 2015 on the file of the Court of III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, this Civil Revision Petition is filed. I.A.No.26 of 2Ol9 is filed under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, lB72 ("the Act, 1872" for brevity), to send Ex.P. l-promissory note dated 15.11.2O13 to the Handwriting Expert along with admitted sig:nature of the petitioner and his handwriting note for obtaining report. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-plaintiff alleged that the promissory note IS scribed by the petitioner-defendant, which the petitioner disputes and submits that the petitioner has not admitted the signature on the document and as such intended to send the same for comparison to Handwriting Expert. It is further contended that the Court below ought to have send Ex.P. I to the Handwriting Expert for opinion but the Court below has erroneously dismissed the application. He also
CRP.NO.312 0F 2022 submits that the Court below should have send Ex.P. 1 to Handwriting Expert along with the admitted handwriting of the petitioner, which plea is also erroneously negatived. He also submits that P.W.1, in his cross examination, has also stated that he has no objection for sending Ex.P. 1promissory note to Handwriting Expert. In this case, it is to be seen that suit is for recovery of money basing on promissory note-Ex.P. 1. Even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner has not disputed signature on Ex.P. 1 but only writing in Ex.P. 1 is disputed.
Section 73 of the Evidence Act reads as under: "Comparison of Siqnature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved:- In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.
CRP.NO.3L2 0F 2022 compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person."
As mentioned above, in case the Court comes to the conclusion that Court is unable to compare the handwriting, the Court can always go for the opinion of the \ I I expert and disposal of the application will not come in the way of the Court for getting the opinion regarding handwriting expert on Ex.P. 1. The Court would compare the signatures only if evidence of both the parties is over and in this case, that stage has not come. As such the application filed under Sections 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act is misconceived. The observations made in I.A.No.26 of 2Ol9 for _the purpose of deciding the said I.A. would not be final and the same can always be agitated after adducing evidence. In view of the same, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Court below.
Subject to the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. It is always open for the Court to compare the hanciwriting with the admitted haldwriting on Ex.P. 1. before judgment is rendered and in case of any
CRP.NO.312 0F 2022 such require ment, Court can always send the document to expert for his opinion.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
SD/- T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII ,l srcrr/r,r4fficen To,
1. The lll Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar
2. One CC to SRt. J SREENIVASA RAO Advocate [OpUC]
3. Two CD Copies
4. One Spare Copy S.D \\-lk
HIGH COURT DATED :2410212022 l \ I c 18 JUL 202 I (-:
,/ t
ORDER
.-O CRP. No. 312 of 2022 DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS $'\:r