CRP/3371/2014 of M.Venkateshwar Rao Vs G.Ramdev Reddy on 30 December 2021

ORDER:

I . The revi ion petitioner/respondent/plaintitl' has fl led this civilrevision petiti< n under Article 227 ol the Constitutron of Indiaassailing the or ler dated 14.08.2014 in lA No.23 of 20 l4 in OS No.67of 2011 on tre file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge,Mahabubnagar

2. IA No.2. of 2014 was filed by the petitioners/defendants underSection 45 of he Indian Evidence Act to send the prornissory notesdated 23.03.20 )8 to the Truth l-ab at Hlderabad. along rvith admittedsignatures of t re first det'endant fbr expen opinion us to r," hether thesignatures lbur cl thereon bclt'rng to thc'tlrst def'endanl or not.

'fhis 3. ap1 lication was allow'ed b1' the Court bclou ancl the suitpromissory nc .es dated 23.03.1008 x'erc ordele cl to t,c scnt to theTruth Lab, Hy lerabad tbr comparison ol the signatures ol'exc'cutantson the two pn missory notes with the admitted signatures of the flrstdefendant. Thi ; order is challenged by the revision petitioner/plaintiffalleging that t le Court below ought to have seen that the disputedsignatures on r[e suit promissory notes cannot be sent to a private Labat the choice c lthe defendants. It has to be referred to the GovemmentExaminer. Th signatures liguring in the written statenrent cannot betaken as adr rined signatures as there is always possibilitl of _- manipulation [or variation ][of ][signatures' The ][Court below ][ought ][not to]have directed [for ][comparison ][of ][the ][disputed ][signatures ][with ][the]original signatures [found ][on ][the ][xerox ][copies ][of ][pleadings ][in ][OS]No. 133 of [2006 ][on ][thc ][t-rle ][ol ][the ][Senior ][Civil ][Judge' Mahabubnagar']as the [very ][sarre party ][has disputed ][his ][signatures ][in ][the ][sale ][deed]to [the ][subject rnatter ][in ][OS No'133 ][of ][2006 and ][the]pertaining disputed [signatures ][were ][sent ][to ][the ][Forensic ][Science Laboratory]the [suit ][was ][dismissed' The ][signatures ][of ][the ][plaintiff](F.S.L.). Finally contained in [the plaint ][and ][the ][evidence ][affidavit ][in ][OS ][No'132 ][of]2006 cannot [be ][taken ][as ][admitted ][signatures ][as ][there is ][possibility ][of]manipulation.

4. The [plaintiff ][has ][filed the ][Original ][Suit ][for ][recovery ][of]Rs.8,59,333/- [based ][on the ][two ][promissory notes dated 23'03'2008']The written [statement ][is ][filed ][by ][the ][defendants and ][the ][evidence ][of]was [concluded. ][At ][that ][stage' ][this application ][was ][filed ][in ][IA]plaintiff No.23 of [2014 ][under Section ][45 ][of ][the lndian Evidence ][Act' ][1872 ][to]reler the disputed [signatures ][ibund ][on ][rhe said ][promissory ][notes dated]23.03.2008 [to ][the ][lruth ][L-ab ][at ][Ily'derabad' ][lt ][is ][a ][fact that the first]defendant [has ][been disputing ][his ][signatures ][found ][on ][the ][said]promissory notes [dated ][23'03'2008']

5. Thelearnedcounselfortherevisionpetitioner/plaintiffhascontended that [the ][document cannot be referred ][to ][a ][private ][Lab, ][and]unless the [signatures ][of ][the ][contemporaneous ][period are ][available]

referring the prc nissor) notes with the pleadings in the plaint andevidence al'tldavi. in OS Nos. l.ll ol'10(Xr anci l3.l o1'1006 on the flleof the Senior Cir it Judge at Mahabubnagar is a lLrtile exercise , as theevidence al'tldavi. in OS Nos. l.ll ol'10(Xr anci l3.l o1'1006 on the flleof the Senior Cir it Judge at Mahabubnagar is a lLrtile exercise , as thesale deed, whicl was disputed by the def-endant in OS No.l33 of2006, was alread [r ]referred to the hand writing expert of F.S.L. and thesuit was dismis: ed as the report of the expert is against the firstdefendant and al;o relied on the principles laid in Renu Devi Kedia v.Seetha Devil2006, was alread [r ]referred to the hand writing expert of F.S.L. and thesuit was dismis: ed as the report of the expert is against the firstdefendant and al;o relied on the principles laid in Renu Devi Kedia v.Seetha Devil

6. In the abc ue decision, it was held bv this Courr that no usefulpurpose [,,a,'ill ]b, served by sending the dispured signatures andspecimen signatr res lbr comparison. rvhen the gap betueen those tri,osignatures is nea ly nine years, as there is likely to be' some changes insignatures or th lre is possibility ol disguising st",-'le ol' signatures.Accordingly, th: orders of the Court belorv. uhich dismissed theapplication filec u/s.45 of Indian Evidence Act, w,ere confinned bythis Court.

7. In this cal e, on a studied examination of the order impugned, inpara-6, it is mer rtioned that the documents that have been filed withthe admitted sig natures of first defendant are certified copies in OSNo.132 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judee, Mahabubnagar.The plaintiflha, taken a serious objection stating that in OS No.133of 2006 though saie deed vras referred to the hancl u'riting cxperl ot'

F.S.L. and [the ][signatures ][found ][thereon ][were ][compared ][with ][the]admitted [signatures ][of ][the ][first ][defendant' ][the report was ][submitted]the [first ][defendant by ][the ][FSL ][expert']against

8. It is true [that the ][present ][suit ][was ][filed ][in ][the year 2011' ][based]on the two [promissory ][notes dated ][23 '03 ]['2008' ][written ][statement ][was]filed and [issues ][were ][settled' ][At ][that ][suge' ][the ][present ][application]was filed in [the year 2014 ][i'e', ][almost after six ][years ][to ][the ][date ][of ][suit]promissory [notes dated ][li'03'1008 a ][request ][is ][made ][to ][refer ][the]promissory [notes ][to ][the ][hand ][writing ][expert ][at ][Truth ][Lab ][for]comparison [of ][the ][disputed ][signatures ][with ][the ][admitted ][signatures']No such [original ][documents are ][filed ][by the ][petitioner/first ][defendant]before the [Court below ][for ][refering ][to,the ][hand ][writing ][expert']Further, [no ][such ][signatures ][of ][the ][contemporaneous ][period ][are ][filed]by the first [defendant ][in ][respect ][ofthe ][suit promissory ][notes' ][Though]sometimes [it ][may ][be ][difficult ][to ][except ][the ][signatures ][of ][the]contemporaneous [period, ][but ][unless such ][signatures ][obtained ][in]normal course [are secured even ][expell ][Inay ][express ][his/her ][inability ][to]

unde ltake [the ][co ][t.ll ]llart [stlt.t]

g. The learned [counsel ][fbr ][the ][respondents/defendants remained]absent [without ][any representation ][despite ][granting ample ][opportunity']

10. The [Coutt ][below ][has ][sirnPlY][ rnentioned ][that the ][documents]are [cefiit-red ][copies obtained ][in ][OS ][No'132 ][of ][2006 ][and ][there]proposed of the said [documents']cannot be [any ][dispute about ][genutneness]

Thus, the first c efendant has r-aired to secure the original documentswith his si6 naturessubscribed in usual course duringcontemporaneot s periodThe documents proposed to be referredwith the admit.ed signatures of the defendanr are the certifiedphotocopies of r re pleadings and evidence affidavit in OS No.l32 of2006 and there rs every possibility of changing the signatures and nouseful purpose v ould be served by sending the dispr-rted signatures onthe suit promis;ory notes with such admitted signatures on thephotocopies' I r such circumstances, in the absence of admittedsignatures of conts6p61-aneous period, no usefirl purpose will beserved in sendin 1 the suit documents to an expert tbr cornparison andopinion either a: the r'uth Lab or at the Go'ernnrent euestionedDocument Exarn ner.

I l. Further, tl e disputed signatures are made on 23.03.200g, theoriginal suit was hled in the year 20il and the present apprication wasfiled in the year .:014 and not specified by the defendant u,hen exacrlyvakalat, written I tatement etc., are filed in the present suit. Therefore,original suit was hled in the year 20il and the present apprication wasfiled in the year .:014 and not specified by the defendant u,hen exacrlyvakalat, written I tatement etc., are filed in the present suit. Therefore,the possibility ol disguising the style of signature cannot be ruled out.Therefore, in v ew of time gap even the admitted signatures ofdefendant on sui summons, vakalat and written statenlent, cannot beref'erred fbr cor rarison and opinion. rn such circurrstances, in m.v-considered opini rn, the Court beiorl is not.iustitied in accepting therequest of the de'endants to ret'er the suit prornissory notes to the handwriting expert at F.S.L. for comparison either with the photocopies olwriting expert at F.S.L. for comparison either with the photocopies ol ))

the documents in [OS ][No'132 ][of ][2006 ][or ][with ][the ][signatures ][on]summons, vakalat [and ][written ][statement ][in this ][suit. ][Accordingly, ][the]order impugned is [liable ][to ][be ][set aside.]

To,

12. In the result, [the ][Civil ][Revision Petition ][is ][allowed ][and ][the]dated [14.08-2014 ][in ][IA ][No.23 ][of ][2014 ][in ][OS ][No'67 ][of]impugned order 201 I on the flle of [the ][II ][Additional Senior ][Civil ][Judge,]Mahabubnagar. [is ][hereby ][set ][aside. ][As ][the ][original ][suit was ][filed for]recovery ofnroney [in ][the ][year ][l01l ][and the ][proceedings ][are ][stalled by]one way or the other [during the ][last one decade, ][I ][deern ][it ][frt ][to direct]theCour.tbelowtodisposeoftheOriginalSuitwithinsixmonthsfiom the date of [receipt ][ofa ][copy ][of this ][order. ][Both ][the parties ][to ][the]suit shall cooperate [with ][the ][court ][below,for ][expeditious ][disposal ][of]the suit as directed. [In ][the circumstances ][of ][the ][case, ][there shall ][be ][no]order as to costs.

1 3. Miscellaneous [applications, ][if ][any ][pending ][in ][this ][revision]

petition shal I stand closed.

SD/.K.ONESIMASSISTANT [REGISTRAR]al//- ,/SECTION [OFFICER]

,TRUE [COPY//]

H: $Td.i{ [*, ][ff ]#* [jtili:t"1,ru'1 ]["]

1.

2.

34. Two [CD CoPies]5. One [SPare ][CoPY]sbr4. Two [CD CoPies]5. One [SPare ][CoPY]sbr HIGH COURT

DATED: 3011212'121

.4..t._.n - [vt ]'aORDERCRP.No.3371 o12014\, ALLOWING TTIE CIVIL REVISION PETITION

/.1(.,/q