Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 897 (AP)

Thotakura Ram Suresh v. Velpula Mastanaiah

2024-07-31

K.SREENIVASA REDDY

body2024
ORDER : K Sreenivasa Reddy, J. Challenging the Order, dated 13.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.821 of 2023 in O.S.No.1087 of 2021 by the I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ongole, (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the trial Court’) filed under Section 45 of the EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 (for brevity ‘the Act’), the petitioner herein/defendant preferred the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein/ plaintiff filed O.S.No.1087 of 2021 against the petitioner herein/ defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,66,100/- basing on a promissory note, dated 01.03.2017 alleged to have executed by the petitioner herein/defendant in favour of the respondent herein/plaintiff for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, agreeing to repay with interest at 24% per annum. During pendency of the suit, the petitioner herein/defendant filed an application under Section 45 of the Act and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity ‘CPC’) before the trial Court seeking to send Ex.A1/promissory note along with Ex.A2/part payment endorsement to the Expert for comparison. The trial Court having gone through the entire material on record, dismissed the application observing that the petitioner herein/defendant did not furnish any contemporary signatures or any writing to compare with the disputed signatures. Aggrieved by the said impugned Order, the present Civil Revision Petition was filed. 3. It is the contention of petitioner herein/defendant that the alleged signatures and writings of the petitioner herein/defendant on Ex.A1/promissory note and Ex.A2/part payment endorsement are forged and prior to filing of the suit, the said plea was taken in reply notice sent the by the petitioner herein/defendant to the respondent herein/plaintiff besides contending in written statement. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent herein/plaintiff contends that the Revision Petition muchless the application before the trial Court is not maintainable, as the petitioner herein/defendant did not file the contemporary signatures to compare with the disputed signatures. 5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner herein/defendant vehemently contended that the signatures of the petitioner herein/defendant available on vakalat and written statement are sufficient to send the same to the Expert for comparison with the disputed signatures on Ex.A1/promissory note and Ex.A2/part payment endorsement. 6. Perused the entire material available on record. 7. 5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner herein/defendant vehemently contended that the signatures of the petitioner herein/defendant available on vakalat and written statement are sufficient to send the same to the Expert for comparison with the disputed signatures on Ex.A1/promissory note and Ex.A2/part payment endorsement. 6. Perused the entire material available on record. 7. The point that would arise for determination in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the signatures of the petitioner herein/ defendants on vakalat and written statement, taken subsequent to filing of the suit, can be termed as contemporaneous signatures? 8. A perusal of material on record discloses that the respondent herein/plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner herein/ defendant for recovery of suit amount basing on a promissory note alleged to have executed by the petitioner herein/defendant, whereby, the petitioner herein/defendant disputed the alleged signatures on Ex.A1/promissory note and Ex.A2/part payment endorsement and filed an application under Section 45 of the Act before the trial Court vide I.A.No.821 of 2023 for comparison. Apparently, the trial Court dismissed the said application on 13.02.2024. Aggrieved by the said impugned Order, the present Revision Petition was filed. 9. It is apposite to mention that during the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner herein/defendant contended that the admitted signatures of the petitioner herein/defendant on vakalat and written statement filed before the trial Court, can be compared with the disputed signatures on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. 10. Undoubtedly, people's handwriting changes over time, the second rule of comparison is that the known signatures must be relatively contemporaneous. This means that the known signatures must have been written between one or three years before or after the disputed one. The alleged Ex.A1/promissory note was said to have executed on 01.03.2017 and Ex.A2/part payment endorsement was alleged to be executed on 14.07.2018. A perusal of material on record, the written statement appears to be filed before the trial Court on 10.05.2022, which is more than five years from the date of Ex.A1/promissory note and four years from the date of Ex.A2/part payment endorsement and it does not fall under the period as prescribed to treat them as contemporaneous signatures. 11. A perusal of material on record, the written statement appears to be filed before the trial Court on 10.05.2022, which is more than five years from the date of Ex.A1/promissory note and four years from the date of Ex.A2/part payment endorsement and it does not fall under the period as prescribed to treat them as contemporaneous signatures. 11. In P.Padmanabhaiah v. G.Srinivasa Rao , 2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 517 , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that “In the well considered view of this Court, the defendants 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.” 12. Indeed, the petitioner herein/defendant did not furnish any contemporary signatures before the trial Court. Felt aggrieved by the said impugned Order, the petitioner herein/defendant preferred Revision Petition before this Court, again without filing contemporaneous signatures or writings and seeking to compare the same with the admitted signatures on vakalat and written statement is nothing but abuse of process of law. The Revision Petition is devoid of merit and force and it is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.