Telangana High Court
CRP/6541/2012 of Palepu Krishna Sumanth Vs Unnam Ranganayakamma on 31 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6541 2012 December 31, 2012 Between: Palepu Krishna Sumanth, S/o.late Jaganmohan Rao … Petitioner/ Petitioner/ Defendant No.2 AND Unnam Ranganayakamma, W/o.Poornachandra Rao And another … Respondents/
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6541 2012
December 31, 2012
Between:
Palepu Krishna Sumanth, S/o.late Jaganmohan Rao
AND
… Petitioner/Petitioner/Defendant No.2
Unnam Ranganayakamma, W/o.Poornachandra Rao And another And another … Respondents/
Respondents/Plaintiff & Defendant No.1
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6541 of 2012
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
In this civil revision petition assailed docket order dated 11.10.2012 passed in I.A. No.868 of 2012 (I.A) in O.S.No.381 of 2008on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.
The petitioner herein is also the petitioner in the I.A. and seconddefendant in the suit, whereas the first respondent herein is also thefirst respondent in the I.A and plaintiff in the suit, and secondrespondent herein is also the second respondent in the I.A. and firstdefendant in the suit. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as theyare arrayed in the I.A.
The petitioner filed the I.A. mainly for sending the suit promissorynote dated 01.12.2005 which was marked as Ex.A1 to Hand writingExpert in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for ascertainingvariation in body writing and amount column and signature of thepetitioner to elicit alleged material alteration said to be made by thefirst respondent, with the help the of scribe.
The claim of the petitioner is that on one occasion he along withone Ch.Ram Nath went to the house of one Unnam Koteswarammawith whom he got acquaintance and on believing the words ofKoteswaramma he signed on a blank printed promissory note in whichhe mentioned the corresponding amount as Rs.30,000/- in figures. Ram Nath is a crucial witness to establish the genuineness of thepromissory note. The first respondent and Unnam Koteswarammaconspired together and altered the amount noted in the promissorynote noting words ‘Laksha’ before ‘muppai vela rupayalu’ in teluguand also adding ‘1’ before figure of ‘30,000’ whereby there is materialalteration. Therefore, he sought for sending the suit promissory notefor Expert examination to ascertain the question of interpolation of thesaid figure and words.
According to the first respondent, the allegations made by thepetitioner are false. Ch.Ram Nath has been residing in NOIDA in USAand it is very difficult to bring him to examine him in the suit. Only todrag on the proceedings the petition was filed frivolously. On the otherhand, the petitioner did not file a list of witnesses at any point of time.
The Court below dismissed the I.A. by the docket orderobserving that it was filed at the time when the suit was posted for thearguments of the petitioner. Further by virtue of the decision Pamu Padmavathi v Perati Yakub Reddy[[1]]it is always open to the Courtto examine the matter is not bound to send the document for Expertexamination. The Court below also felt that only to drag on theproceedings, the I.A was filed.
By virtue of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, theCourt has power to compare the signatures/handwriting on the basis ofcogent material available on record even without sending thedocument for Expert examination. I do not find any irregularity orinfirmity in the order passed by the Court below.
The civil revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Miscellaneouspetitions pending if any shall stand closed.
___________________________________
(G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)
December 31, 2012.YS
[1]2008 (3) ALD 669