Koduru Govindu, v. Siripurapu Paradesinaidu,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4015 of 2016 Date: 19.08.2016 Between:

Koduru Govindu, Visakhapatnam District.

.. Petitioner and Siripurapu Paradesinaidu, Visakhapatnam District.

.. Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner:

Sri D. Srinivas Counsel for respondent: --

CVNR, J C.R.P.No.4015 of 2016 ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 03.06.2016 in I.A.No.91 of 2015 in O.S.No.124 of 2012 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram. The petitioner is the defendant in the aforementioned suit filed by the respondent for recovery of money on the foot of Ex.A.1promissory note. While it is the pleaded case of the respondent that the petitioner has borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and executed the promissory note, the petitioner has pleaded that the respondent has obtained signatures on blank papers and used the same for creating Ex.A.1. During the pendency of trial, the petitioner has filed Exs.B.1 to B.8. Ex.B.1 is purported to be a chit receipt allegedly signed by the respondent and D.W.2-a partner of the respondent in the chit business. When the respondent denied his signature on Ex.B.

1, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.91 of 2015 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short 'the Act') for sending Exs.B.1 to B.8 along with the admitted signatures of the respondent taken in the Court during the course of evidence, to the expert for comparison. The lower Court has dismissed this application by observing that under Section 73 of the Act, the Court itself has the power to compare the signatures and handwriting of the respondent/plaintiff with that of the signatures and handwriting found on Exs.B.1 to B.8.

Ordinarily, when there is a serious dispute about the handwriting or signatures or thumb impressions, the Court in its discretion may send the documents for an expert opinion under Section 45 of the Act. Whether the Court has exercised such discretion in a sound manner or not depends upon the facts of

CVNR, J C.R.P.No.4015 of 2016 each case. However, under Section 73 of the Act, if an expert has given his opinion, such an opinion does not bind the Court and eventually it is the Court, which is empowered to decide on the genuineness or otherwise of the document by comparing the handwriting/signatures with the admitted documents. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Court below has not exercised its discretion in a sound or proper manner. Even otherwise in my opinion, by merely sending Exs.B.1 to B.8 for an expert opinion, the petitioner will not be able to succeed in the suit. Ex.A.1 is not in dispute. The petitioner has to satisfy the Court that Ex.A.1 transaction is connected with Ex.B.1 and that no consideration under Ex.A.1 was passed. The petitioner can succeed in establishing this only by adducing proper oral and documentary evidence in his possession.

For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the order of the lower court. This order however does not preclude the lower court from sending the disputed documents for handwriting expert, if during the course of comparison it feels that opinion of an expert is required. Subject to the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

As a sequel, CRPMP.No.5197 of 2016, filed by the petitioner for interim relief stands disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 19.08.2016 va