APHC010076672024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3299]
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 551/2024
Between:
Ponduri Durga Prasad ...PETITIONER
AND
Veluduti Ganesh ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.NAGABHUSHANAM GUDIPATI
Counsel for the Respondent:
1.
The Court made the following:
RNT, J
CRP No.551 of 2024 2
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 551 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri Nagabhushanam Gudipati, learned counsel for the petitioner and
perused the material on record.
2. This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the defendant in the suit, challenging the order dated 06.12.2023 passed in
I.A.No.188 of 2022 in O.S.No.740 of 2020 pending in the Court of VI Additional Junior
Civil Judge, Kakinada.
3. The plaintiff/respondent filed the said suit for recovery of money based on
the promissory note Ex.A1 on the pleadings that the same was executed by the
petitioner/defendant. The petitioner after filing the written statement filed I.A.No.188
of 2022 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act with the prayer to send the suit
promissory note to the handwriting expert for his opinion by comparing the signatures
on the suit promissory note with the signatures of the defendant/petitioner to be taken
in the open Court.
4. Learned VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada has rejected the said
application by the impugned order dated 06.12.2023.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the
application is unjustified as in the interests of justice, the learned trial Court ought to
have allowed the application.
6. I have considered the submissions as advanced and perused the material on
record.
7. In rejecting the application, the learned trial Court has observed that the
application cannot be allowed for sending the disputed signatures on the promissory
RNT, J
CRP No.551 of 2024 3
note with the signatures to be taken in open Court, inasmuch as the
defendant/petitioner may change his signatures. In this respect, the learned trial
Court has placed reliance in the case of Nimmagadda Padmanabharao v. Smt. Kosaraju
Satyavathi {reported in 2006 (5) ALT 586}in which it was held that when there are no
contemporaneous signatures, comparison of the disputed signatures with the admitted
signatures would not be safe, as there is bound to be clear difference in the
signatures. It was further observed that for want of contemporaneous admitted
signatures, the request to send, Ex.P1 cheque as was involved in that case, to the
handwriting expert could not be acceded to.
8. I do not find any illegality in the order impugned. No case for interference is
made out in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India which is to be invoked in exceptional circumstances and not to correct mere
errors of law although this Court do not find any error of law in the order impugned.
9. The civil revision petition is dismissed, however, leaving it open to the
petitioner/defendant to file application afresh, if he has any contemporaneous
document of his signatures to compare with the disputed signatures, to send to the
handwriting expert. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.
_______________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
Date: 20.03.2024
Dsr
