Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 740 (AP)

Thota Ravi Babu v. Dodda Lakshmi Narasamma

2023-05-02

SUBBA REDDY SATTI

body2023
ORDER : Defendant in the suit filed the above revision against the order, dated 08.02.2023 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in O.S.No.74 of 2017 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Parchur. 2. Plaintiffs filed O.S.No.74 of 2017 against the defendant for recovery of amount on the strength of promissory note, dated 30.12.2002. 3. In the plaint, it was contended that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.43,548/- on 30.12.2022 from Dodda Gopalaswamy and executed promissory note. Defendant paid part payments on 25.12.2005, 16.12.2008, 24.11.2011 and 22.11.2014. Thereafter Dodda Gopalaswamy died intestate on 29.09.2015 leaving behind him wife, son and daughters as his legal heirs. Plaintiffs, who are legal heirs of Dodda Gopalaswamy got issued legal notice calling upon the defendant to repay the amount and since defendant failed to repay the amount, plaintiffs filed suit for recovery of amount. 4. Defendant filed written statement and contended that Dodda Goapalswamy has no financial capacity to lend amount. Defendant issued reply notice, dated 13.11.2017. There is no debtor and creditor relationship between the plaintiffs and defendant. Suit is barred by limitation and there is material alteration in the part payment endorsement dated 24.11.2011. Thus, prayed to dismiss the suit. 5. Pending the suit, defendant filed I.A.No. 3 of 2023 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send document Ex.A1-promissory note dated 30.12.2022 to handwriting expert for opinion. 6. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended inter alia that suit promissory note dated 30.12.2022 and its part payment endorsements are rank forgery. Hence, it is just and necessary to send the document to handwriting expert for comparison. 7. Counter was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs opposing the petition. 8. Trial Court, by order, dated 08.02.2023, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is filed. 9. Heard learned counsel on either side. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ex.A1 suit promissory note is dated 30.11.2022 and according to the plaintiffs, defendant made part payment endorsements on four occasions. He would also submit that in the written statement, defendant pleaded that suit promissory note and part payment endorsements are forged. He submits that in view of the plea taken in the written statement, defendant filed present application to send the document to handwriting expert for comparison. However, Court below without considering the same, dismissed the application. 11. He would also submit that in the written statement, defendant pleaded that suit promissory note and part payment endorsements are forged. He submits that in view of the plea taken in the written statement, defendant filed present application to send the document to handwriting expert for comparison. However, Court below without considering the same, dismissed the application. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported order of the trial Court. 12. The point for consideration is whether sending the document to handwriting expert for comparison without filing authentic document containing admitted signature of the defendant, is permissible? 13. As stated supra, suit is filed for recovery of amount on the strength of promissory note and defendant pleaded forgery of promissory note as well as part payment endorsements. Defendant, by filing this application prayed the Court to send Ex.A1-promissory note dated 30.12.2022 to handwriting expert to compare another pronote without revenue stamp, vakalat and written statement, which are enclosed to the affidavit filed in support of the petition. 14. Suit promissory note is of the year, 2002 and suit was filed in the year 2017. The signatures on vakalat and written statement cannot be termed as admitted signatures and the pronote enclosed to the affidavit in support of the petition cannot be called as authentic document, containing admitted signature. 15. In Taidala Yesupadam and another vs. Burugu Sreenu, 2023 (1) ALT 343 A.P., this Court, in fact, held that the party, who is making application to send the document to expert to compare the signature, should assert and filed authentic documents containing his or her signatures along with I.A. and without making available the admitted signatures, ordering interlocutory application, will not serve. 16. In the case on hand, defendant did not file any authentic document containing the admitted signatures for comparison. The signatures on vakalat, written statement and another unstamped pronote cannot be termed as admitted signatures. Unless defendant files authentic document containing his admitted signatures, the question of sending promissory note to handwriting expert for comparison does not arise. Trial Court considered all these aspects and dismissed the application. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the order of the trial Court. Hence, this revision is liable to be dismissed. 17. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.