Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/2837/2022 of JAGIRIPU VENKATA RAMANA Vs KADIYALA PADMA JYOTHI on 30 December 2022
2022 isssssessss Counsel for the Petilioner(s):SRk K.V.S.S.PRABHAKARA RAO, ADVOCATE: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the folldwihg brder: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV, FRIDAY , THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFANDHRAPRADESH::AMARAV,
FRIDAY,THETHIRTIETHDAYOFDECEMBERTWOTHOUSANDANDTWENTYTWO
PRESENT
THEHONOURABLESRIJUSTICESUBBAREDDYSATTI-CIVILREVISIONPETITIONNO:2837OF2022
PetitionunderArticle227.oftheConstitutionofIndia,oravinothatinthe24circumstancesiSon'statedth':inthei"grounds'^56.625filedherein,of2022theinHighO.S.No.143Courtmayof'2017bepleasedDatS.Raiamahendrm,PrincipalSeniorCivilJudge’Kajamahendravaram,EastGodavariDistrict.
BETWEEN:
&end^;ars"m,E^^t
53yea's.Ooc-AnnapoomepeU,
AND
...PETITIONERS/bEFENDANT
“—■*9®*5out47Years,Rajamahendravaram,EastGodavariD,strict'’Hukumpefa,Rajamahendravaram,EastGodavariD,strict'’Hukumpefa, ’'’^'®R/bm!:"«'5TZ^®^30Years,^'®R/bm!:"«'5TZ^®^30Years,Rajamahendravaram,EastGoSavariDistrict.^’Venkatagiri,atagin,Hukumpeta, ■'“T-,^®®^’’**»»ReoAgedAbout77fch°e?^d;avl°^nTEX.'GS&a%i^^^Hukumpeta,fch°e?^d;avl°^nTEX.'GS&a%i^^^Hukumpeta, lANO:1OF2022
...RESPONQENTS/PLAINTIFFS
isssssessss
CounselforthePetilioner(s):SRkK.V.S.S.PRABHAKARARAO,ADVOCATE:
CounselfortheRespondents:
TheCourtmadethefolldwihgbrder:
HON’BLESRIJUSTICESUBBAREDDYSATTI
CIVILREVISIONPETITIONNo.2837of2022
JagiripuVenkataRamana,S/oSanyasiRao,agedabout53years,Occ:Business,R/oD.No.42-15-22,ByepassRoad,Annapoornapeta,Rajamahendravarm,EastGodavariDistrict.
...Petitioner
Versus
KadiyalaPadmaJyothi,W/oKrishnaMohan(Late),Agedabout47years,Occ:Housewife,R/oD.No.13-11,Venkatagiri,Hukumpeta,Rajamahendravaram,EastGodavariDistrictandothers.
...Respondent
CounselforthepetitionerCounselforrespondents•
:SriK.V.S.S.Prabhakar
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
DefendantinthesuitfiledtheabovecivilrevisionpetitionunderArticle227oftheConstitutionofIndiaagainstorder,dated24.11.2022in'I.A.No.625of2022inO.S.No.l43of2017
onthefileoflearnedPrincipalSeniorCivilJudge,Rajamahendravaram.Rajamahendravaram.
2. PlaintiffsfiledO.S.No.l43of2017againstthedefendantforrecoveryofamount.forrecoveryofamount.
3. Accordingtotheplaintiffs,defendantalongwithonePasupuletiSeshayya,jointlyborrowedanamountofRs.5,00,000/-fromKadiyalaKrishnaMohanon08.05.2008,PasupuletiSeshayya,jointlyborrowedanamountofRs.5,00,000/-fromKadiyalaKrishnaMohanon08.05.2008, 2■
agreeingtorepaythe.samewithinterest,at24%perannum.DefendantandPasupuletiSeshayyajointlyexecutedprorriissorynote.Inspiteofseveraldemands,PasupuletiSeshayyapostponedpaymentoftheamount.However,defendantpaidpartpaymentofRs.10,000/-eachon'15.04.2011andon08.05.2008towardsinterestandmadeendorsementtothat effectonthebacksideofpromissoryriote,dated08.05.2008.Theotherexecutantsofprornissoryriote,PasupuletiSeshayyadiedthereafterandconsequeritly.thedefendanttookresponsibilityofrepayingtheamount.ThereafterK..KrishnaMohanpassedawayon23.12.2004.Hence,hissonsfiledtheabovesuitforrecoveryofamount.
4. Defendantfiledwrittenstatementdenyingexecutionasalsotheendorseriients.,alsotheendorseriients.,
5. Pendingthesuit,defendantfiledl.A.No.625of'2022underSection45oftheIndianEvidenceActreadwithSection151ofSection45oftheIndianEvidenceActreadwithSection151of CPQtosendpromissorynote,dated08.05.2008forexpertopinionwiththesignaturesanditsmaterialalterationsfor comparison.
6. Intheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,whilereiteratingtheavermentsofthewrittenstatement,prayedtheCourttosendpromissorynote,dated08.05.2008for \\
>A
\\\
comparisonofsignatureanditsmaterialalterations,toprove thiecaseofthedefendant.
Plaintiffsfiledcounterandopposedapplication.
7.
8. Trial.Court,byorder,,dated29.11.2022dismissedtheapplication.-Aggrievedbythesametheaboverevisionisfiled.
8. Heardlearnedcounselforthepetitioner.
9.
10. Learnedcounselforthepetitionerwouldcontendthatperusalofthepromissorynote,dated08.05.2008disclosesthatthesignaturesonExs.A2andA3areforged.Hewouldalsocontendthatsuitinfactisbarredbylimitationandtosavethe“limitation,Exs.A2andA3,werecreated.Hence,defendantmadeanapplicationtosendthesameforcomparison.However,thetrialCourtwithoutconsideringthesame,dismissedtheapplication.Hence,praystosetasidetheorderoftrialCourt.
11. Defendantinthewrittenstatementdeniedthesignatureonthepromissorynoteaswellasendorsementmadeonsaidpromissorynote.Hence,defendantfiledthepresentapplicationtosenddocumenttoexpertforcomparisonofhissignatures.However,defendantdidnotfileanyauthenticdocumentcontaininghisadmittedsignatureforsendingthesameforexpertopinion.
//
12,AperusaloftheorderofthetrialCourtwoulddisclosethatdefendantfiledPhotostatcopyofSA/GPAof2008.TheallegedSA/GPAcannotbetermedeitherasadmittedsignatureorasauthenticdocumenttocomparethesamewithsignatureofExs.A2andA3.TrialCourtconsideredalltheseaspectsanddismissedtheapplication.ThisCourtdoesnotfindanyreasonorillegalityintheorderofthetrialCourt,whichseeksinterferenceofthisCourt.Hence,thisrevisionisliableto.be dismissed.
13. Accordingly,thiscivilrevisionpetitionisdismissedatthestageofadmission.Nocosts.
Asasequel,allthependingmiscellaneousapplicatiorisshallstandclosed.
To,
//TRUECOPY//
•••
Sd/-MSRINIVASASSIST^!REGISTRAR
^CTIoSoFFICER
Civil';4b^ge.Rajamahendravaram.EastGodavari
2. TheSectionOfficer,V.RSection,
Amaravati
3.4. TwoCD®®VNA4.TwoCD®®VNA
HighCourtofAndhraPradeshat