Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 46 (AP)

S. Mohan Rao v. C. Doraswamy Reddy

2019-03-22

M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

body2019
ORDER : M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J. 1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order, dated 10.12.2018, in IA No. 386 of 2018 in OS No. 132 of 2017, passed/by the Junior Civil Judge, Pakala, whereby, the petition filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, was dismissed and denied to refer the disputed promissory note, Ex. A1, to the expert for opinion and comparison of the handwriting on the top of the promissory note and the other documents. 2. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the petitioner filed certain columns i.e., place, date and amount on the top of the promissory note and signed on the revenue stamp. Except that he did not write anything in the alleged promissory note. In the column meant for place of execution, he mentioned place as 'Penumur' and not 'Pakala' and he never filled the entire body of the alleged promissory note. Therefore, the alteration voids the document and requested to refer the document to an expert for opinion. 3. But, the respondent denied the same on various grounds. 4. Aggrieved by the order, this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed on various grounds. 5. Sri. S.S. Bhatt, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the alteration of place of execution of promissory note, Ex. A1 is appearing to naked eye, it is initialed by the scribe and therefore, it is a material alteration of Ex. A1, which voids the document and hit by Section 84 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') and placed reliance on the unreported judgment of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in CRP No. 4362 of 2015, dated 7.11.2015, in support of his contention. 6. It is the case of the petitioner from the beginning that on demand, the petitioner, for security purpose, he gave a signed blank promissory note to the plaintiff and after completion of the chit transaction the defendant (petitioner) several times asked the plaintiff/respondent to return the above blank signed promissory note but the plaintiff has been postponing the same on one pretext or the other and also some misunderstandings arose between the plaintiff/respondent herein and the defendant/petitioner with regard to the blank signed promissory note etc. But, for the first time, the petitioner invented a story of filling up columns like place of execution, date of execution and the amount on Ex. A1 in Para No. 4 of the affidavit. The contention urged in Para 4 of the affidavit is contrary to the plea raised in Para 7 of the written statement. But, this Court at this stage, cannot decide the conflicting pleas raised at the different stages. 7. A bare look on the promissory note marked as Ex. A1, the column meant for place of execution is altered in the place of 'Penumur' the word 'Pakala' was written but it was initialed by S. Krishna, the scribe of the document. Whether it is a material alteration or whether such alteration was made prior to signing on the document by this petitioner is a question of fact to be decided by the Trial Court to constitute that it is a material alteration. However, when the alteration is appearing to the naked eye, it is for the Court to decide by exercising power under Section 73 of the Act and whether such alteration is material alteration to attract Section 84 of the Act, but for, deciding such an issue, the lower Court need not refer the disputed document, Ex. A1, for opinion of the expert by exercising power under Order XXVI Rule 10-A C.P.C. though the Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court, the Single Judge did not lay down any law, except deciding case based on the facts of the case before it. Therefore, the judgment cannot be applied to the present facts of the case, as such I find no ground to interfere with the orders under challenge. However, the Trial Court is at liberty to exercise power under Section 73 of the Act and decide the suit in accordance with law subject to the defence set up by the defendant in the written statement and issues framed by the Trial Court. 8. With the above observations, the civil revision petition is disposed of. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit uninfluenced by the observations or findings if any recorded herein above. No order as to costs. 9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.