Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/3744/2019 of B SUBRAHMANYAM ALIAS B.SUBRAMANYAM ACHARY Vs B JAGADEESWAR REDDY on 31 December 2024
COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY , THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3744 OF 2019 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the Order dated 03.12.2019 in
APHC010427512019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHARCIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3744/2019
Between:
B Subrahmanyam Alias B.subramanyam Achary ...PETITIONER
AND
B Jagadeeswar Reddy
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
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.
1. S VARADARAJULU CHETTY
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. O UDAYA KUMAR
The Court made the following order:
The present revision is filed aggrieved by order dated 03.12.2019, passed in IA.No.972 of 2019 in OS.No.24 of 2019, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District.
2. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed suit in OS.No.24 of 2019, seeking to pass judgment and decree against the petitioner herein, directing him to pay suit amount of Rs.8,59,000/-, together with interest @ 24% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, from the date of the institution of the suit till the date of realization. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement stating that the suit promissory note is fabricated. He also contended that his signature was forged. Pending suit, the petitioner/defendant filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act videIA.No.972 of 2019, to send the suit promissory note to hand writing expert for comparison of the signatures in the promissory note with admitted signatures on the vakalat, written statement and the signature on Rass Mahila Pragathi Card.
3. The said application was opposed by the respondent/plaintiff through counter affidavit. Upon hearing the parties, the Trial Court by impugned order dated 03.12.2019, dismissed the said application which is assailed in the present revision petition.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent.
5. Perused the material available on record.
6. The suit is filed based on a promissory note dated 05.11.2015, alleged to have been executed by respondent/plaintiff. The promissory note is of the year 2015, whereas the petitioner/defendant want to send the promissory note to experts opinion along with the signatures affixed on the vakalat, written statement of the respondent. The petitioner has admittedly not filed the contemporaneous signatures of the respondent to enable the disputed signatures of the respondent to be sent for comparison. In the absence of admitted contemporaneous signatures of the respondent, no purpose would be served if the same is compared with the admitted signatures of the respondent affixed on vakalat and written statement. Apart from the same, the Trial Court may compare the disputed signatures along with the admitted signatures of the respondent under Section 73 of the Evidence Act.
7. In view of the above findings, there is no illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court and there are no merits in the revision petition, accordingly, the same is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
Dt.31.12.2024 DSB
U
DSB
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
C.R.P.No.3744 OF 2019
Date: 31.12.2024