SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY. C.R.P No. 3150 of 2008 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
This C.R.P. is filed assailing the order dt. 17.6.2008 in I.A.No. 958 of 2008 in O.S.No. 695 of 2006 on the file of the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad whereby the said application filed
by the petitioner/plaintiff for summoning the Manager of the Bank to produce the original of Ex:A.8 was dismissed. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perused the record. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of certain amount from the respondent/defendant. The respondent/defendant filed written statement contesting the suit. The trial of the suit commenced and the matter reached the stage of arguments. Previously, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No. 517 of 2008 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act seeking to send the cheque i.e. the original of Ex:A.8 and also Ex:A.13 to hand writing expert. The respondent/defendant pleaded that he received an amount of Rs. One lakh by way of the cheque i.e. the original of Ex:A.8. The petitioner/plaintiff has been denying the signature on Ex:A.8. The trial court by an order dt. 4.4.2008 dismissed the said application holding that viewed from any angle, there is no purpose and justification to send for either Ex:A.8 or Ex:A.13 for comparison and that the said order has become final. Subsequently, the present application I.A.No. 958 of 2008 is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for summoning the original of cheque i.e. original of Ex:A.8 from the Bank through the Manager. The said application was dismissed mainly on the ground that the suit has reached the stage of arguments and earlier, the application to send the document to hand writing expert was already dismissed and therefore there is no justification to summon the documents. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that if the original of Ex:A.8 is produced before the court, it will enable the court to peruse the original document and compare the signatures with the admitted signatures available on record. The learned Counsel for the respondent would on the other hand submit that the document may not be summoned for sending the same to hand writing expert in view of the orders passed earlier dismissing the application I.A.No. 517 of 2008 filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. It is not in dispute that the order dt. 4.4.2008 in I.A.No. 517 of 2008 dismissing the said application has become final. Therefore the question of sending the document to the handwriting expert does not arise. Further, if the original document is placed on record it would certainly enable the trial court to look into the same and also peruse the signatures contained thereon inasmuch as Ex:A.8 is only a Xerox copy. In that view of the matter, it is considered that the original of ExA.8 can be summoned from the bank through the Manager for the purpose of perusal by the trial court and not for any other purpose. As the suit is of the year 2006 and the matter has reached the stage of arguments, the trial court is directed to dispose of the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 29.12.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY. C.R.P.No. 3150 of 2008.
ORDER:
Dt. 29.12.2010.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.