CRP/3553/2023 of Mittapally Narsimha Reddy Vs Narla Narayana on 29 December 2023

[ [32081]

IN THE HIGH [COURT ][FOR ][THE STATE ][OF ][TELANGANA]AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY [NINTH ][DAY OF ][DECEMBER]TWO THOUSAND AND [TWENTYTHREE]

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE [SMT ][JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA]

ctvtL REVISION PET[ITION ][NO: ][3539 ][AD 3553][ oF ][2023]

crvlL REVISION PETITION[N][O: 3539 ][OF ][2023]

Petition under Article [227 ][of ][the ][constitution ][of ][lndia ][aggrieved ][by ][the]

order dated 3o-1o-2o23 [in l.A.No. ][556 ][of ][2023 in ][o.S.No. ][140 ][ol ][2018 passed by]the Principal Senior [Civil Judge, at ][Karimangar]

Between:

Mittaoallv Narsimha [Reddv, ][S/o Late ][Malla ][Reddy, ][aged ][60 ][years,. ]Q9'Agiicultdre, R/o Galipally [Viilage ][of ][Ellanthakunta Mandal, Karimnagar ][ulslncl]...PETITIONER/PETTTIONER/PLAI [NTI ][FF]Agiicultdre, R/o Galipally [Viilage ][of ][Ellanthakunta Mandal, Karimnagar ][ulslncl]...PETITIONER/PETTTIONER/PLAI [NTI ][FF]

AND

Narla Naravana, S/o [Bheemaiah, Aged 45 ][years, ][Occ' ][Business, R/o ][H'No' ][5-]6-145t 1, Miruthinagar, [Karimnagar District.]

...RESPONDENT'RESPONDENT'DEFENDANT

clvltsrNO:35oF20

Petition under Article [227 ][ot ][lhe constitution ][of ][lndia ][aggrieved ][by ][the]

orderdated [go-1o-2029 ][in ][1.A.No.555 ][of ][2023 in ][o.s.No.140 of ][2018 passed ][by]the Principal Senior [Civil Judge, at ][Karimangar]

Between:

Mittaoallv Narsimha Reddv, [S/o Late ][Malla ][Reddy, ][qged ].60 [yeaq. ]999'Rgriculture, R/o Galipally [Village of Ellanthakunta Mandal, Kanmnagar ][ulsrlct]...PETITIONER'PETITIONER'PLAI [NTIFF]

AND

Narla Narayana, S/o Bheemaiah, Aged 45 years, Occ. Business, R:/o H. No.55-145/1, Maruthinagar, Karimnagar District.

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT'OEFENDANT

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. RAMACHANDAR RAO VEMUGANTI

Counsel for the Respondent:

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

l

THE HONOURABLE SMTJUSTICE P. SREE SUDHACIVIT REVISION PETITION NOS. 3539 AND 3553 OF 2023coMON OER:

These two civil revisions are filed against the common order of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagardated 30.10.2023 passed in I.A.No.555 of 2023.2. Revision petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S.No.140 of 201g forrecovery of Rs.2,72,000/- along with Rs.1,95,125l_, interest @24o/o per annum from 13.0g.2015 to 09.0g.201g amounting toRs.4,67,7251- with future interest. After closure of evidence ob-both sides, the plaintiff filed applications in I.A.Nos.555 and 556of 2023 requesting the Court to re-open the suit and to sendEx.B.l to the handwriting expert on the ground that it is a forgeddocument. The suit is filed in the year 201g and applicationswere filed at a belated stage when the matter was posted forargumenb, as such the trial Court did not consirJer theapplication and dismissed the same. Aggnieved the said commonorder, these ievisions are preferred. l-te nrainly contended thatD.W.1 was cross.examined on 01.03.2023 and the defendant,sevidence was closed. Subsequently, due to reopening of thecase, as per the orders in I.A.No.250 of 2023,, D.W.2 chief-

examination affidavit was filed on 2L.04.2023 and was crossexamined on 30.08.2023 and the case was posted for argumentson 12.09.2023 and again on 25.09.2023 I.A.No.555 of 2023 wasfiled by the plaintiff along with i.A.No.556 of 2023 requesting thetrial Couft to reopen the case and to send the disputed documentEx.B.l for getting expert opinion. Admittedly, the suit was filedby the plaintiff for recovery of amount and it is for him tosubstantiate his version. He mainly contended that Ex.B.l is aforged document when he took the plea of forgery it is for him toon 12.09.2023 and again on 25.09.2023 I.A.No.555 of 2023 wasfiled by the plaintiff along with i.A.No.556 of 2023 requesting thetrial Couft to reopen the case and to send the disputed documentEx.B.l for getting expert opinion. Admittedly, the suit was filedby the plaintiff for recovery of amount and it is for him tosubstantiate his version. He mainly contended that Ex.B.l is aforged document when he took the plea of forgery it is for him toprove the same. No doubt, the applications were filed at abelated point of time, but the revision petitioner hereincontended that D.W.2 was examined as per the orders of I.Asand aggrieved by the said evidence and filed these applications.Therefore, this Court fiMs it reasonable to set aside the commonorder of the trial Court.belated point of time, but the revision petitioner hereincontended that D.W.2 was examined as per the orders of I.Asand aggrieved by the said evidence and filed these applications.Therefore, this Court fiMs it reasonable to set aside the commonorder of the trial Court.

3. In the result, both the civil revision petitioners are allowedand the trial Court'rs directed to obtain the admitted signatures ofthe revision petitioner/plaintiff and send along with Ex.B.1 to thehand writing expeft for his opinion on the signatures appearing \

J

on Ex.B.l within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs.Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

sd/-v.KAvlrHAASSISTANT REGISR/,TRUE COPY"SECTION OFFICER

To,'1. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, at Karimangar2. One CC to SRl. [RAMACHANDAR ][RAO ][VEMUGANTI Advocate ][IOPUCI]3. Twb CD Copies VH\

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2911212023