Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 985 (AP)

Kambala Nageswara Rao v. Kesana Balakrishna

2013-11-08

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2013
JUDGMENT The respondent filed O.S.No.138 of 2011 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Repalle against the petitioner for recovery of certain amount on the strength of a promissory note dated 20-10-2008. It was pleaded that the petitioner herein executed the promissory note in favour of the father of the respondent, and in spite of repeated demands, he did not pay the amount, covered by the promissory note. 2. The petitioner filed a written-statement, opposing the suit. According to him, one promissory note was signed by him in the year 2000, on a request made by one Sri Venkata Rama Rao, and after the death of Venkata Rama Rao, when demand was made by the father of the respondent, he paid the amount in installments. He pleaded that though the father of the respondent promised to destroy the promissory note, signed by him, the present suit was filed by putting fictitious date. 3. The petitioner filed I.A.No.518 of 20012, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short ‘the Act’), with a prayer to send the promissory note dated 20-10-2008 to the handwriting expert for determination of the age of the signature on the document. The application was opposed by the respondent. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 02-04-2013. Hence, this revision. 4. Heard Sri P.J. Victor, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. The application, no doubt, is filed under Section 45 of the Act, and it is not uncommon that such applications are filed in the suits for recovery of money on the strength of promissory notes. However, the prayer in the I.A is some-what peculiar. Even while not disputing his signature on the promissory note, the petitioner wanted the age thereof to be determined. Several complications arise in this regard. The mere determination of the age, even if there exists any facility for that purpose; cannot, by itself, determine the age of the signature. In a given case, the ink, or for that matter, the pen, may have been manufactured several years ago, before it was used, to put a signature. Several complications arise in this regard. The mere determination of the age, even if there exists any facility for that purpose; cannot, by itself, determine the age of the signature. In a given case, the ink, or for that matter, the pen, may have been manufactured several years ago, before it was used, to put a signature. If there was a gap of 10 years between the date of manufacture of ink or pen, and the date on which, the signature was put or document was written, the document cannot be said to have been executed or signed on the date of manufacture of ink or pen. It is only in certain forensic cases, that such questions may become relevant. The trial Court has taken correct view of the matter and dismissed the application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in ISHWAR v. SURESH (2010 Crl.L.J 1510 Karnataka). That, however, was in relation to a criminal trial, where the parameters are totally different. 7. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under revision. If the petitioner is so advised, he can adduce such evidence, as is in his possession, to put forward his contention. 8. The C.R.P is accordingly dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to substantiate his plea, by raising the same in the written statement. 9. The miscellaneous petition filed in this C.R.P shall also stand disposed of. 10. There shall be no order as to costs.