The High Court · 2025

Smt.Swarnalatha Reddy. S/o.Raghuma Reddy Age.49 years, Previously R/o Previously Flat No.303, Sai Sarvodaya Apartments, Sha livahananagar, Moosarambagh, Hyderabad Presently . R/o.3-48, Kurmidda, Yacharam, R.R.District. ..,RESPONDENT lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 grant stay of the all further proceedings in OS No. 382 of 2009, on the file of XXVI Addl., Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. VEDULA CHITRALEKHA Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER *1f':7 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDH/ N RAO cRP.NO.369 0F 2023 ORDER

1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Ar1 cle 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Order passed by the XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad in I.A.Nc 215 of 2019 in OS.No.382 of 2009, daled 06.12,2022.

2. Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondent is : e defendant in OS.No.382 of 2009.

3. Petitioner has filed IA.No.215 of 2019 under Or: rr 16 Rule 1& 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for sho('CpC') r/w Se tion 151 of CpC to.summon Smt.P.Rajani, FSL Expert, Red Hills, Hyce r rbad as pW.3 to give evidence which is assailed in the CRp.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner sr rmits that the learned trial Court ought to have allowed I.A.No.215 cf 2 019 instead of dismissing the same and also failed to see that the t) titio ner- pla intiff has to prove the FSL report and mere marking of the rocu ment is not sufficient. The learned trial Court failed to see that I e judgments of the Criminal Courts are not binding on the Civil CoL r s and that the petitioner-plaintiff is entitled to prove his case by addrr ing approprlate evidence. The respond ent-defe nda nt has denied tl r execution oF 216 BRMR,J cRP 369 2023 Ex.A1 specifically in the written statement and prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order passed by the learned trial Court.

5. Notice got issued to the sole respondent is refused. Hence, it amounts to deemed service.

6. Petitioner has filed sult against the respondent vide OS.No'382 of 2009 for recovery of Rs.15,21,260/- basirrg on the copy of the authorization letter given by the respon dent-defe ndant on 21'02 2006 and the cheque dated 13.07.2006 for Rs.10,00,000/-.

7. Respondent who is the defendant in the sult denied the executlon of the above said documents. The GPA Holder of the petitioner by name Ramesh Jain has filed

8. affidavit in IA.No.215 of 2019 and contended that after filing the suit by the petitioner- pla intiff for recovery of Rs.15,21,260-27 Ps, respondent-defenda nt has also filed suit in OS.No.489 of 2010 to receive the balance loan amount of Rs.17,47,955/' and to return the pledged gold ornaments and the respondent has issued sale authorization letter to the petitioner to dispose of the ornaments and the same is marked as Ex'A1. The respondent in full and final settlement of the loan account has issued cheque dated 13'07 2006 for Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, lt4alakpet Branch Cheque was returned unpaid due to drawer's signature differs and insufficiency I I 316 ]]RMR,J cRt, 369 2023 of fund in the Bank Account. Thereafter, the per i ioner has filed complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrumcr 1 ; Act, 1881 ( for short 'N.I.Act') and the present suit for reco,, ry of nroney. Respondent-defendant has filed a private complaint I of 2007 on the file oF IX Ivletropolitan lvlagistral( , Crirne No.1308 Ranga Reddy, L.B.Nagar, during the course of investigation p.S. ! sent Ex.A1 for opinion of the Forensic Expert rroornagar has at Hyderabad. Smt.P.Rajani gave opinion on 31.C1.2008 categor!c. ly s1-atinq that "the person who wrote the red enclosed signatur( i and writings marked S1 to S25 also wrote the red enclosed signatur , marked as Q1 and Q2 i.e., the signature on Ex.A1 belongs to the re:jt) ndent hereln.

9. Respondent filed his counter denying the contert of t1e petition averments and further contended that she was acqui ( rl in CC. No.135 of 2011 which is filed by the petitioner under Section 3g of N.I. Act. The petitioner has carried the matter in Appeal vldc. rim nal Appeal No.276 of 2012 which also came to be dismissed. Wtr n the issuance of cheque and the complaint were not proved, the I her aspects of calling Expert before the Civil Court by wasting the r:luable time of the Court as well as the Experts whose services are vali ly elsewhere.

10. The learned Trial Court basing on the contention of the parties has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner vil, I.A.No.215 of 2019 dated 06.72.2022 holding that the evidentiary va r e of the report of the Expert which is already on record has to be ,djudicated on \ BRMR,J cRP 369 2023 merits and for that purpose summoning of FSL Expert Smt'P'Rajani is not required

11. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 filed by the petitioner is to summon is completed, the aPPlication Smt.P.Rajani, FSL ExPert of Red Hills, Hyderabad as PW.3.

72. Smt.P.Rajani, Scientific Officer of Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory, Red Hills, Hyderabad has given her report on 31.01.2008 in Crime No.1308 of 2OO7 of Saroornagar P S , wherein the opinion reads as under: "The person who wrote the red enclosed signatures and wrltings marked S1 to 525 also wrote the red enclosed signatures marked Q1, Q2 but dld not write the red enclosed writings marked Q3". 13- The said opinion is also marked as Ex.D9 in CC No'135 of 2011' which is filed by the petitioner against the respondent under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The respondent was acquitted in the above said C'C' on !7.O2.2O!2 holding that the complaint is barred by limitation and the complainant has failed to establish that the accused has given written instructions to sell of his gold jewellery under the pledge and furtherthecomplainantfailedtoestablishthattheaccusedhasiSsued impugned cheque towards discharge of outstanding balance Petitioner has carried the matter in Appeal before Additional Metropolltan Sessions Judge - cum - VIi Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge' -!.'I ./i sl6 I]RMR J aRP 369 2023 Hyderabad ylde Criminal Appeal No.276 of 2072, '.n,1 ch came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.09.2015.

14. It is worth mentioning that respondent has (lged a private complaint against the petitioner before XI Metropc I 'an Magistrate, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, under different Sections of Inc an Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and A.P. [Telangana Area] Mo- ry Lenders Act, 1349 Fasli. The same is referred to P.S. Saroornag,r and they filed charge sheet against the petitioner who rs the accus€( therein for the offences punishable under Sections 4O3,406, 418, 4). , 468, 47L and 47-l of IPC and Section 10(1-B) and 13 A.P. (T.A.) tl,r'ey Lenders Act vrde CC.No.607 of 2013. In the said case, Smt-P.F,rjani, Scientific Officer is examined as PW.4 and her report is marked s Ex.P54 but n the appendix of CC.No.607 of 2013 it is shown , s Ex.P52. The petitioner was acquitted in CC.No.607 of 2013 on 24.0€ 2016,

15. As the petitioner has filed the suit for recover) of rnoney, the burden is on him to prove that he is entitled for the art llunt clairned n the suit. The evidence of Scientific Officer is mat( -ial for proper adjudication of the case with regard to Ex.A1-authoriza on letter.

16. The learned trial Court has wrongly held that summoning of Smt.P.Rajani is not required in the case. As statec ;upra, Criminal Court find ings are not binding on the Civil Courts anc the petit io ner- l BRMR,J CRP,36S 2023 ;.;:a,. plaintiff has to prove his case independently. This Court is of the view that the learned trial Court fell in error in not summoning the Expert.

17. In view of the reasons above, the order passed by the learned trial Court suffers from perversity and illegality and requires interference of this Court and the same is liable to be set aside.

18. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed, order passed by the learned trial Court in I.A.No.215 of 2019 in OS-No.3B2 of 2009, dated

06.12.2022 is set aside and consequently petition filed by the petiti.oner is allowed. Interim Orders if any shall stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s stands closed //TRUE COPY' SD/. A.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRA ECTION OFFICER To, The XXVI Addl., Chief Judge, City Civil Couri, Hyderabad, Hyderabad Diskict. One CC to SRl. VEDULA CHITRALEKHA Advocate [OPUC] 1 2 3 Two CD Copies W PK/PSL $... HIGH COURT DATED:1411112025 i,J ( * 1t, SI4 J c 1 ts :g )fllf i t',, TC', CRP.No.369 of 2023 CIVIL REVISION PETITION ALLOWED r"L ?