The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents: Sreenivasa Rao Ravulapati The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD K ]VIAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 715 of .lr 25 ORDER '[-hc prcsent C]ivil Revision I)ctition is prefcrr-c 1 asarnst the trrcler datcd 01.02.2025 in I.A. No. 592 ol' 2022in O l, No. ll(r ol' 1018 passcd hv thc l)rincipal t)istrict Judge at Nalgond:r l. -fhc rcrision pctitioner hcrcin is the delendanr ir thc ahorc sa id Su it.

3. ['hc rcspondcnt hcrein flled thc subject suit fbr I -'cor crr o I' N4oner as pluintili'ui& O.S. No. l2(r ol'2018 under ()r I 'l Vll I{ulc I r ri Scction 26 and Sectiorr l-5 I ol Civil proccdrrr: ( 'odc ( l'or shorr-Cl'C'). .1. Ihe pctitioner herein had fllcd the underlvine ir c rklc utorr alrplication tida I.A. No. 592 o1 2027 in t_hc sub.iec ;uit undcr Scction -{5 ol' the Indian E,videncc Act. 1872 (for sht r 'thc Ae t. I 871) rrrr soction 151 of CPC lor scnding the suit pronr is()r\ Il()tc datcd 25.0(r.20 l61o thc Handuriting lixpcrt. F.S.l_.. ,r c rabird. Lo detcnnirrc thc age of ink used and lirr comparison o['r r disputcd 2 - signaturcs with the petitioner's admitted signatures. alld to obtain an expert report.

5. The Trial Court upon hearing both thc partics has dismissed the underlying Interlocutorl, Application lilcd b1, the pctitioner obscrving that the petitioner's rcquest to detcrrnine thc age ol- the ink is inadmissible as it cannor help in establishing i,i hethcr the document was executed on the allesed date. The 'l'rial also obserued that il the documcnt is indecd for.-gcd. the same can be disproved by other reliable cvideucc such as hank rccords.

6. Aggrieved by, thc above said ordcr darcd. 04.02.2025 the petitioner herein had prcf-erred the prcsent Civil Rcvision pctition. 7 . Heard learncd counsel lbr the pctitioncr and lcamed counsel lirr the respondent and perused the record. U. Thc petitioner conrends rhar rhe suir lllcd by rhe rcspondent/plaintiff for rccovery of l{s. 29.60.0001 is based on false and bascless allegations: that the pctitioncr had taken on11, a sum of Rs. 50.000/- ltom thc rcspondcnt on 30.09.2016. u,hich u,as repaid alon!'r,vith an interesl amount of Rs. 2().000,.: thal at rhe timc of borrolr,ing the said sum. the petitioncr issued a blank 3 signed cheque as security but never executed anl. pronr i)iorl noLc. including thc one dated 25.06.2016: and that the said rronrrssory notc is lirrgcd. firhricated and invented lbr the purpose t,t litigation 9 -l'hc petitioner contends that his signaturc rvas lorec,l on thc suit promissorl' note and that the attesting witnesses are r rt. credible and are merelr slose associates or loyal suppor.( rs ol the respondent and thus denied the execution of the docunr,rr t

10. lhe petitioner also contends that the expert be irected to eranrine and determine the age olthe ink used in lhe, ritings on thc said pronrissory note. in ordcr to asscss u,helhcr tlr documcnt uas crcated on or around the purported date: that t rc alleged disputcd signaturcs appearing on the said promissory nir I are to bc courparcd s iLh his adrnitted signatures. with a vicrv to ,:: tablish the authcnticitr or othcnvisc of thc documcnt; that thc c\') rt opinion is \ ital fbr amiving at a just and fair adiudication of tl c dispute. particularll in light of his categorical denial of exeorr on of thc pronrissorv note. The petilioncr lufthor contcnds that r rless such scicntiflc analysis and comparison is permitted, he r.vould be \- 4 seriously prejudiced in thc dcl'ense of thc suit, and that donial of such an opporrunity would am unt to qrave iniusticc.

11. Per contro, the respondent contcnds lhat the prcsent roision petition is not maintainable eithcr on facts or in law inasmuch as the undcrlying interlocutory application is filed onll to dclal' the procccdings, u,hich arc at the stagc of flnal argunlerlts: lhal lhe pctitioner did not rcscrve any right to scnd thc document lor cxpcrl cxamination in his lvritten statcment and the omission to take such a plea at thc carliest stagc indicates that the application rras fllcd belatedly and lacked bona fides.

12. The respondent further contends that thc rvriften statenrent s'as fited in Juty 2019, and the prcscnt application under Scction -15 ol' thc lndian Evidence Act was filcd nearly aflcr a lapse o[ threc and a half years, dcmonstrating thc intent behind the application is onlr to protract the proceedings and . dclay disposal o[' the suit- Therefore. the presel)t Civil rcvision pctition bcing dcl'oid ol'tnerit and contrary to lar.r,, descrves to hc dismissed r'r ith costs

13. I have taken note o1-the respcctive contentions urged. 5 lz+. It is pcrtincnt to note that thc corc grievancc . ised by the petitioner in this rcvision petition is that .whether th: Trial Court rias.iustit-red in dismissing the underlying interlocuLorr application llled br thc pctitioner seeking to send the suit pror issory note dated 25,()6.2016 ro rhc Handwriting l,)xpert, F.S.L., llr lerabad. t5. It is to be noted rhar the petitloner admittedly di,t not rescrve anr such right or make an\. cxpress request for experl r ramination in lris u rittcn sratemcnt. ['he present application carrc to hc tiled trearlv tirur vears afier the institution of the suit and ai he stage ol final arguments. Such dclar,. r,vithout any explanation :r.rsts doubt. on the b()na lldcs of the praver madc by the petitioner

16. Moreovcr. it is scttled that lhe scientific determtr r .ion of the agc ol' ink is not a rcliable or conclusive method for t ;tablishing [hc datc ol' cxccution ol a documcnt and thc ex1,t rL opinion regarcling ink agc is nor dcterminative of the time of u.i ing. as thc ink mar har c hcen manuthctured long before it was ar I 'I-hc llon'ble Strpremc Courl in the casc of Union of It,t rallr used. 'ia v. Jyoti Prakosh Mittert. held that 'there is no mechanism to clot :rminc the '(197i)LS('('l9ar .- 6 agc of the ink. The expeft opinion to check age of thc ink cannot hclp to determine the date of writing of the document bccausc thc ink used in the writing of thc documenl mav have becn manulactured years earlier,.

17. Applying the above settled principlc of lar.v to thc prcscnr casc. it is to be noted thal thc prar er fbr dcterm ining thc ink a_ec is rcndcred meaningless. Further. the question of lirrgen ol. the signature on purported promissorv n.te is concemetl. the same can be cstablished through oral and documerrtary, evidence , including cross-cxam inalion and comparison of signatures by the Court itscll. undcr Section 73 of thc Aot. Additionally. if the petitioner contcnds that the rransaclion is fictitious, hc is ah.l.avs at libertv to rch. on circumst-antial and contemporancous evidence. including bankine rocords I lJ. In li-eht of thc foregoing discussion. this Courl is of the considercd view that the Triat Court has rightly exerciscd its discrction in dismissing thc underlyin-e interlocutory application, and thc ordcr passed is supported b1.. sertled .iudicial prccedent. Consequentl_r,. this Court finds no ground to interl-erc q ith the 1 impugncd order in crercise of its supervisory jurisdi, tion under Article 221 of thc Constitution ol'lndia

19. For thc aborc-menlioned reasons. this Court is 1'the view that thc order ol thc trial Cou( does not sulfer lrom i r 1 infirmit1' 0r erTor

20. Accordinqli'. the Clivil Revision Petition is dcr c d ol merit and is dismisscd.'fhe order dated 04.02.2025 in I.A 'Jo. 592 of 2022 in O.S. No. 126 ol20l8 is sustained. No ordcr as t ) costs Conscqucntlr. r.r.r isce llancous petitions pending ' any shall stand closed. No ordcr as to cosls Sd/. NAYANT CHAI{ )RA SEKHAR RAO DE DUTY REGISTRAR \ ,TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFTCER To,

1. The Principal District, Judge at Nalgonda. (with recor0s if any) 2. One CC to SRI. Joginipally Sai Krishna, Advocate [OP ] ll 3. One CC to SRl. Sreenrvasa Rao Ravulapati, Advocate ( tPUCI 4. Two CD Copies JA/PSL o HIGH COURT DATED 15t07t2025 ORDER CRP.No.715 of 2025 -.-:'' .Z-.-. 1,: :\. B5 tr; W \\ -,:.. .\.- , i, t,) ,\ ), ,l CIVIL RIIVtSION PI]TITION IS DISMISSED r