Vempati Sharmila , Ganta Sharmila v. Tanneeru Sarojini,
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1739 OF 2016 DATED 1st JULY, 2016 BETWEEN Vempati Sharmila @ Ganta Sharmila ....Petitioner And Tanneru Sarojini ..Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1739 OF 2016.
ORDER:
The petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit OS.No.280 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala. The respondent herein filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioner for recovery of money. In the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1771 of 2015 seeking to send the promissory note dated 24.08.2008 to Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for comparison of her disputed signatures on Ex.A.1 with that of admitted signatures and Relief Order dated 24.06.2008 and also leave letter dated 01.08.2007.
On an earlier occasion when a similar application was filed, the same was allowed but the handwriting expert sent a communication on 26.11.2015 asking the petitioner to submit some more admitted signatures written in the normal course of business such as cheques, letters, deeds, bank account opening forms, applications, withdrawal forms etc.,. But the petitioner did not furnish the same. The petitioner herein is working as staff nurse and not a lay woman and cannot say that no other documents containing signatures were available. There was no explanation from the petitioner for not submitting documents as sought for by the expert despite granting sufficient time. When the suit is posted for arguments, the present application was filed. The Court below dismissed the application through the order under revision observing as follows:
"
This Court keenly perused the letter of director dt.26.11.2015, APFSL, Hyderabad and he sought more admitted signatures of petitioner written in the normal course of business, such as cheques, letters, deeds, bank account opening forms, applications, withdrawal forms, etc., but petitioner could not furnish any such of her signatures written on the above said document stating that no signatures of her is available. The petitioner herein is staff nurse but not a lay woman to state that no signatures of her is available. Further the petitioner could not offer any explanation why she could not file her written signatures despite granting sufficient time. The matter stands posted for arguments. Hence at this juncture of filing this petition without furnishing admitted signatures of petitioner, sending the documents to expert is serve no purpose. Hence I am of the considered view that this petition is devoid of merits. Hence dismissed"
In view of the order passed by the trial Court rightly in
exercise of its discretionary power, this Court finds no error in the said order.
The Civil Revision Petition is therefore dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.
-------------------------------------------------- JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO DATED 1st JULY, 2016.
Msnrx