Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1114 (AP)

Katta Anitha Kumar v. Gorli Srinivasa Rao

2012-11-09

B.N.RAO NALLA

body2012
JUDGMENT : - These revisions are filed assailing the orders dated 11.08.2010 in I.A. Nos.388 and 389 of 2010 respectively in O.S No.1141 of 2004 on the file of the V Additional Senior Civil Judge, (FTC), Visakhapatnam. 2. The revision petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit is filed for recovery of money of Rs.1,08,533/- with interest. 3. The parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed in the I.As. 4. The I.As were filed to reopen the matter and to issue summons to (1) the Branch Manager, The Cooperative Bank Limited, Santhipuram, Visakhapatnam to produce the original opening application form and specimen signatures of the S.B. Account bearing No.6585, and (2) the Post Master, Post Office, P & T Colony to produce the original opening application form and specimen signatures of S.B. Account bearing No.68327 respectively to send the documents to the expert for opinion. The trial Court after enquiry dismissed the I.As holding that there are no bona fides to allow the same. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material available on record. 6. It is the case of the revision petitioner that she neither borrowed any amount from the respondent nor did she execute Ex.A.1-alleged promissory note in his favour. In the year 1996, she got married to one K.Ravi Kumar and since then she used to sign as K.Anitha Kumar in all her bank accounts etc. Earlier, she filed I.A. No.365 of 2007 to send the disputed signatures and thumb impressions on Ex.A.1 -promissory note along with her admitted signatures and thumb impressions for comparison to the hand writing expert and the same was allowed and she deposited a demand draft for Rs.5,000/-towards expenses. However, the trial Court did not send the documents to the expert. The present I.As were dismissed though there was no counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent. The trial Court ought to have allowed the I.As to reopen and to summon the above referred officials to produce the above referred documents pertain to the period of execution of the alleged promissory note -Ex.A.1. 7. The present I.As were dismissed though there was no counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent. The trial Court ought to have allowed the I.As to reopen and to summon the above referred officials to produce the above referred documents pertain to the period of execution of the alleged promissory note -Ex.A.1. 7. It is the case of the respondent that as per the order in I.A.No.365 of 2007, the disputed signatures along with admitted signatures were sent to the expert for comparison, however, the expert addressed a letter to the trial Court to send some more signatures of the revision petitioner relating to the period of Ex.A.1 - promissory note. Thereafter, the revision petitioner did not turn up for one year and the matter had undergone several adjournments. The documents which are sought to be summoned by the revision petitioner are not related to the period of Ex.A.1. The revision petitioner is filing applications one after another to drag on the matter. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the trial Court need no interference at the hands of this Court and the C.R.Ps are liable to be dismissed. 8. The contention of the revision petitioner is that neither she borrowed any amount from the respondent nor did she execute the alleged promissory note - Ex.A.1. It appears Ex.A.1 purported to be executed by the revision petitioner in favour of the respondent in the year 2003. The contention of the revision petitioner is that she got married to one K.Ravi Kumar in the year 1996 and since then she used to sign as ‘K.Anitha Kumar’ in all her transactions including her bank account forms/books. It appears from the record, the revision petitioner earlier had filed two applications for sending disputed signatures and thumb impressions on Ex.A.1 - promissory note with that of her admitted signatures and thumb impressions to the handwriting expert for comparison. But on both the occasions, she did not file her signatures related to the period of execution of Ex.A.1 - promissory note. But on both the occasions, she did not file her signatures related to the period of execution of Ex.A.1 - promissory note. In the present I.As, the revision petitioner sought relief to reopen the matter and to issue summons to (1) Branch Manager, Cooperative Bank Limited, Santhipuram, Visakhapatnam to produce the original opening application form and specimen signatures of S.B. Account bearing No.6585, and (2) the Post Master, Post Office, P & T Colony to produce the original opening application form and specimen signatures of S.B. Account bearing No.68327, which are said to be related to the period of Ex.A.1-promissory note. In the circumstances and in view of the contention of the revision petitioner that she neither borrowed any amount from the respondent nor did she execute Ex.A.1-promissory note in his favour and that after her marriage in the year 1996, she used to sign as K.Anitha Kumar, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if the matter reopens and to issue summons to the above referred officials to produce the above referred documents. Therefore, the trial Court, in the interest of justice, is directed to send the disputed signatures and thumb impressions on Ex.A.1 - promissory note along with the above referred documents, which contain the signatures of the revision petitioner related to the period of Ex.A.1-promissory note and admitted thumb impressions for comparison to the hand writing expert. 9. In the result, the C.R.Ps are allowed and the impugned orders dated 11.08.2010 in I.A.Nos.388 and 389 of 2010 in O.S.No.1141 of 2004 on the file of the V Additional Senior Civil Judge, (FTC), Visakhapatnam are set-aside and the said I.As stand allowed. The trial Court shall seek the report of the expert at the earliest as the suit is of the year 2004. There shall be no order as to costs.