YARRAMNENI RATHAIAH v. NAVULURI ANJAIAH

Cultivation, R/o Flat No.603, Srinivasa Apartment, Rajiv Nagar, Ongole, Prakasam District. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to pleased to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.105 of 2024 in O.S.No.1074 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, dated 24.04.2024 in the interest of justice IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to 2 TCDS,J C.R.P.No.972 of 2024 stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.1074 of 2019, on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. P MALLIKHARJUNA RAO Counsel for the Respondent:

MADHAVA RAO NALLURI 3 TCDS,J C.R.P.No.972 of 2024 The Court made the following order: The present revision petition is filed questioning the order dated

24.04.2024 passed in I.A.No.105 of 2024 in O.S.No.1074 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ongole.

The petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the amount of Rs.7,33,333/- with future interest at the contractual rate from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization of the amount. The said suit was filed based on the promissory note dated

16.12.2017 said to have been executed by the petitioner.

The petitioner filed an interlocutory application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act read with Section 151 CPC to send Ex.A1 promissory note to the handwriting expert for comparison of age of the ink and signature for expert’s opinion. The respondent/plaintiff contested the said application by filing a counter-affidavit. Upon hearing both the parties, the trial Court by impugned order dismissed the said application. Questioning the same, the present revision petition is filed.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.S.Mounika, learned counsel for respondent.

Learned counsel the petitioner would submit respondent filed the suit for recovery of amount based on a forged and created promissory note. It is further contended that the petitioner did not execute the promissory note in favour of the respondent. He further submitted 4 TCDS,J C.R.P.No.972 of 2024 that he has taken a specific plea in the written statement that the suit pronote is a rank forged one. Therefore, the present application is filed to send Ex.A1 promissory note for comparison of the age of the ink of the signature on Ex.A1 with the recitals in the body of Ex.A1 to the handwriting expert.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the trial in the suit was completed and, when the matter is posted for arguments, the present application is filed so as to delay the proceedings in the suit. She would further contend that, on perusal of the pleadings in the written statement, it clear that, the stand taken by the petitioner is that he never executed the promissory note and, therefore, the only course available to him is to file an application to send Ex.A1 for handwriting expert so as to substantiate his case that the signature does not belong to him. Instead, he filed the present application to compare the age of the ink of the signature with that of the contents made in Ex.A1, which is the plea taken by the petitioner in the written statement.

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, though the remedy under Section 45 of the Evidence Act is available to the petitioner, for the reasons best known to him, he did not choose to prefer to file appropriate application the relevant point of time to prove that, the signature of Ex.A1 does not belong to him. Apart from the same, on perusal the written statement, is clear the plea taken by petitioner/defendant is that his signature is forged. 5 TCDS,J C.R.P.No.972 of 2024

Therefore, the only course available to the petitioner is to file an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. Since he did not avail the said remedy, as rightly pointed out by the trial Court, no purpose would be served even if the present application is allowed. Further, on perusal of the record, it is clear that the present application is filed only to delay the proceedings in the suit, inasmuch as it is filed at a belated stage, when the matter is posted for arguments. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. Viewed from any angle, there are no merits in the revision petition.