Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 526 (AP)

Krishtam Susheela (died) v. Khadeerunnisa

2025-03-24

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

body2025
ORDER : 1. This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging the order in I.A.No.598 of 2024 in O.S.No.02 of 2019 dated 24.01.2025 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajampet, dismissing the petition filed under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act and Section 151 of C.P.C, 1908. 2. I.A.No.598 of 2024 is filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act , 1872 whereunder the petitioners raised a plea of sending Ex.B-1 Registered Sale Deed dated 07.11.1984 along with thumb impression obtained from Sub- Registrar Office, Kadapa for opinion of handwriting expert for comparison of the same with the signatures of the deceased plaintiff No.1 with her signature available on vakalat and original plaint. The respondent opposed the petition on various grounds. The Court below upon hearing arguments of both sides, observed that, though thumb impression register is available during life time of deceased Plaintiff No.1, she has not evinced any interest to send thumb impression register to technical expert nor she sought for her thumb impressions before the Court to enable the Court to send thumb impression register to technical expert. Moreover, the petitioners have not filed any admitted thumb impressions of the petitioner No.1 to dispute thumb impression register to any finger print expert/ technical expert and at this belated stage, disputing the signatures along with signatures obtained in the open court cannot be referred to handwriting expert for comparison and dismissed I.A.No.598 of 2024. 3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajampeta, the present civil revision petition is filed, mainly on the ground that, such relief can be claimed at any stage of the suit and requested this Court to set-aside the order in I.A.No.598 of 2024 in O.S.No.02 of 2019 dated 24.01.2025 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajampet. 4. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions urged in the grounds of revision and would contend that, since there are no contemporaneous signatures of the deceased which are available, the signatures in register should be compared with the Vakalat. He further submits that, even though the recent signatures would be desirable for comparison, however it is not a bar to send the same for expert opinion whether the said signature is fit for comparison or not. He further submits that, even though the recent signatures would be desirable for comparison, however it is not a bar to send the same for expert opinion whether the said signature is fit for comparison or not. Since the plaintiff and also the counsel passed away, proper steps could not be taken during the lifetime of deceased Plaintiff No.1. Finally, it is contended that, when there is specific pleading denying the execution of Sale Deed, sending the signature to the expert for comparison is a crucial evidence for effective adjudication of the matter. 5. However, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Court cannot refer the disputed signatures and thumb impression for comparison with the signatures and thumb impression register obtained from Sub- Registrar Office, Kadapa, as there is a gap of more than nineteen years from the date of suit, till the date of filing petition, since there is a possibility of change in style of signatures, including change of writing for different reasons and requested this Court to dismiss the petition by confirming the order in I.A.No.598 of 2024 in O.S.No.02 of 2019 dated 24.01.2025 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajampet. 6. The petitioners maintained silence for all these 20 years and suddenly filed I.A.No.598 of 2024 in the year 2024 i.e after lapse of time from the date of filing written statement. 7. Undoubtedly, as per the law declared in the judgments referred supra, the petitioner can seek such relief at any stage, including at the stage of arguments or first appeal or second appeal. But, the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is otherwise. The specific request made in the petition is to send Ex.B-1 Registered Sale Deed dated 07.11.1984 along with thumb impression obtained from Sub-Registrar Office, Kadapa for opinion of handwriting expert for comparison of the same with the signatures of the deceased plaintiff No.1 with her signature available on vakalat and original plaint. 8. As Ex.B-1 is executed in the year 1984 and the signatures on the plaint and vakalat are of the year 2003, i.e. almost after 19 years, from the execution of sale deed, there is every possibility of change of signatures due to passage of time and there is every possibility to sign on the documents in disguise, so as to obtain a favourable opinion from the handwriting expert. But, what is required as per law is that, any authentic contemporaneous document containing signatures of the defendant has to be referred along with the disputed signatures for comparison and opinion. The contemporaneous documents might be the documents executed during recent years, but not the signatures obtained after 19 years from the date of alleged execution of promissory notes. This view is fortified by the judgment of this Court in Palle Chakrapani v. M. Prathap Reddy , [ 2017 (5) ALD 4 ] , wherein, this Court clearly held in paragraph 15 as follows: “The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there are certain interpolations in Ex.A1 i.e., the word "before" and the figure 1' before “80,000- 00” and with different ink i.e., interpolations can be found with a naked eye and the Court can examine the document and record its findings subject to raising plea of material alternations in the written statement. But the Court cannot order for examination of the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures on vakalat and written statement, which are not contemporaneous. Therefore, I find no grounds to interfere with the order impugned, by exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and consequently, the revision is liable to be dismissed.” 9. As the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is to send Ex.B-1 Registered Sale Deed dated 07.11.1984 along with thumb impression obtained from Sub-Registrar Office, Kadapa for opinion of handwriting expert for comparison of the same with the signatures of the deceased plaintiff No.1 with her signature available on vakalat and original plaint, the request cannot be accepted at this stage, as there is a possibility of change of signature due to passage of time from the date of alleged signature on Ex.B-1. 10. This Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in limited circumstances and nature of the jurisdiction is supervisory over the subordinate courts or the tribunals under the control of the High Court. 10. This Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in limited circumstances and nature of the jurisdiction is supervisory over the subordinate courts or the tribunals under the control of the High Court. The power of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited to find out whether the order under challenge, passed by the subordinate court or tribunal within their jurisdictional limits and the main intention of exercising both administrative and judicial control under Article 227 of Constitution of India is to keep them within the bounds of their jurisdiction and not to allow them to transgress from their jurisdictional limits, but not otherwise. The Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India under the following circumstances: “a) When the inferior court assumes jurisdiction erroneously in excess of power. b) When refused to exercise jurisdiction. c) When found an error of law apparent on the face of record. d) Violated principles of natural justice. e) Arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion. f) Arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material. g) A patent or flagrant error in procedure. h) Order resulting in manifest injustice. i) Error both on facts and law or even otherwise.” Similarly, the Court cannot exercise its discretion under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the following circumstances: "a) Where the only question involved is one of interpretation of deed; b) On question of admission or rejection of particular piece of evidence, even though the question may be of everyday recurrence; c) To correct erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, as a Court of revision; d) To set aside an intra vires finding of the fact, except where it is founded on no material or is perverse; e) To correct an error of law, not being an error apparent on the face of the record; f) To interfere with the intravires exercise of discretionary power, unless it is violative of principles of natural justice; g) The Court shall not interfere on a merely technical ground which would not advance substantial justice." 11. Article 227 of Constitution of India deals with power of superintendence by the High Court over all Subordinate Court and Tribunals. Article 227 of Constitution of India deals with power of superintendence by the High Court over all Subordinate Court and Tribunals. The power of superintendence conferred upon the High Court by Article 227 is not confined to administrative superintendence only, but includes the power of judicial revision also even where no appeal or revision lies to the High Court under the ordinary law, rather power under this Article is wider than that of Article 226 in the sense that it is not subject to those technicalities of procedure or traditional fetters which are to be found in certiorari jurisdiction and such power can also be exercised suo motu. It is a well settled principle that the High Court can exercise supervisory power under Article 227 of Constitution of India , as held by the Apex Court in State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu@ Afsan Guru , [ AIR 2005 SC 3820 ] that under Article 227 of Constitution of India the High Court can interfere with the directions of the Subordinate Courts. 12. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, this Court cannot exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India though the order is wrong, since the power can be exercised only to keep the subordinate Courts and Tribunals within its bounds. 13. Hence, I find no ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the Court below to send the disputed signatures on the documents for handwriting experts for comparisons. 14. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. 15. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand dismissed. No costs.