Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1531 (AP)

Yenni Venkata Ramana v. Boyana Ramesh Kumar

2024-11-06

SUBBA REDDY SATTI

body2024
ORDER : SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J. 1. The defendant in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 16.07.2024 passed in I.A. No.539 of 2024 in O.S. No.385 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikakulam. 2. Respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. No.385 of 2019 against the petitioner/defendant for the recovery of the amount on the strength of the promissory note, dated 27.10.2016. 3. The defendant filed a written statement and is contesting the suit. 4. Pending the suit, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A. No.539 of 2024 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to send a promissory note, dated 27.10.2016 (Ex.A1) to the handwriting expert for comparison with the admitted signatures. The said application was opposed by the respondent/plaintiff by filing counter. 5. The trial Court, by order, dated 16.07.2024, dismissed the application. 6. Heard Sri K. Chennakesavulu, learned counsel representing Sri S. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court ought to have allowed the application and sent Ex.A1 to the handwriting expert for comparison of the signatures. 8. The point for consideration is: Does the order of the trial Court suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India? 9. As stated supra, the suit is filed to recover the amount on the strength of the promissory note and the defendant pleaded forgery. Pending the suit, the defendant, by filing the interlocutory application prayed the Court to send Ex.A1-promissory note dated 27.10.2016 to a handwriting expert for comparison with his admitted signatures. Except for pleading to send Ex.A1 to the handwriting expert, no document containing the admitted signature was filed along with the I.A., to send the same to the handwriting expert. No purpose will be served by ordering such an application unless the person praying the court for sending the document for expert, files the document containing admitted signatures. 10. In Taidala Yesupadam and another vs. Burugu Sreenu 2023 (1) ALT 343 A.P., it was held that the party, who is making an application to send the document to an expert to compare the signature, should assert and file authentic documents containing his or her signatures along with I.A. and without making available the admitted signatures, ordering interlocutory application, will not serve. 11. 11. In the case on hand, the defendant did not file any authentic documents which contained his admitted signatures. The signature scribed in the open court, vakalat, suit summons and written statement cannot be termed as an admitted signature as there is every likelihood of the defendant disguising the signature. 12. In Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy vs. Pratapa Reddy and another 2019 (14) SCC 220 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: "24. There is another reason why we are not inclined to place reliance on the opinion of the expert DW 2. From a perusal of his report, Ext. B-2, it is evident that barring the signature on a written statement in a prior suit, all other admitted signatures of the first defendant are of a period subsequent to the filing of the plaint (i.e. on the vakalatnama and the written statement filed in this suit itself). These admitted signatures taken subsequent to the filing of the suit could not have been used as a valid basis of comparison, and their use for this purpose casts serious doubt on the reliability of the entire report, Ext. B-2. Thus, the report was liable to be discarded on this ground alone, and was wrongly relied upon by the High Court." 13. In P. Padmanabhaiah vs. G. Srinivasa Rao 2017 (2) ALD 368 , learned Single Judge of composite High Court held as under: In the well considered view of this Court, the defendant's signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be considered as signatures of comparable and assured standard as according to the plaintiff even by the date of the filing of the vakalat the defendant is clear in his mind about his stand in regard to the denial of his signatures on the suit promissory note and the endorsement thereon and as the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant might have designedly disguised his signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be ruled out prima facie. The view point being projected by the plaintiff that if the defendant is called upon to furnish his signatures in open Court, he might designedly disguise his signatures while making his signatures on papers in open court is also having considerable force and merit. The view point being projected by the plaintiff that if the defendant is called upon to furnish his signatures in open Court, he might designedly disguise his signatures while making his signatures on papers in open court is also having considerable force and merit. Unless the defendant makes available to the Court below any documents, with his signatures, of authentic and reliable nature more or less of a contemporaneous period, and unless such documents are in turn made available to the expert along with the suit promissory note, the expert will not be in a position to furnish an assured opinion, in the well considered view of this Court. 14. In Lakkapamula Rani vs. Manda Batasari AIR 2022 AP 83 , A.P. High Court held as under: "When there are no signatures of comparable and assured standard on record before trial Court, it is unsafe to obtain signatures of party in open Court and send said signatures and also his vakalat and Written Statement to expert for obtaining opinion." 15. Thus, given the expressions in the above judgments, the defendant who is making an application to send the document to an expert to compare the signature should assert and file authentic documents containing his/her signatures along with I.A. Unless the defendant/s produce/s the document/s containing authentic/admitted signatures, no purpose would be served by allowing such an interlocutory application. 16. In the case at hand, as stated supra, the petitioner/defendant has not produced any authentic document along with the application. The Trial Court considered all these aspects and dismissed the application, by assigning valid reasons. 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.