The High Court · 2025

PetitronunderSectionl5lCPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in tn" ,r]iorrit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be- pleased to proceedings in o'S No 12e-of 2016 on the file of Senior ;;;;;i;;;irllfurther 6lrl'L,iigL a, Mirvalaguda' pending disposal of CRP' Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr' P PRABHAKAR REDDY' Advocate Counsel for the Respondent: Mr' HARI KISHAN KUDIKALA' Advocate The Court made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKTI YARA CTVIL REVIS ION PETITION NO.1026 cl 2024 ORDER: I learcl Mr. P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned :ounsel tirr the 1 , petrtior-rer/rlclentlattt and Mr. Harikishan KIL [jkala, learned corrnsel tirr the resporrclent/ ptaintiff.

2. This Civil llevision Petition is preferred :3grieved by the ortlt'r passerl Lrr thc lcarnccl Senior Civil Juclge at lr4iryalagr'rda in I.A.No.16 ot ')O21 in O.S.No.129 of 2016, det.'l 12.O2.2024' u,hcrein, the saici pctition filed b-l the petitioner rl rder Sectton 45 of Indian Eviclencc Act seckir-rg to forward Ex.A1 f:'expert opinion has ireen cl isrn r ssed.

3. 1'1'rC background [a<'ts are that the suit : O.S.No. 129 ol 20 l(r rvas filec1 for r('covery of I?s.4,57,50O/ alonS; ,r'tth interest on thc basis ol protnissorv- note dated 10.09.r 313 from the clel'endant. The sttit claitn arose from monet r l' lransacl ions involving u,l-rolesalc aucl returil sale of textil:; u'herein the petitior-rer hcre in borrou'ed at'. amouut of Rs.3,0 i OO0/ as hand loern from the respondent herein on 10.09.201l' by executing a prornissorn note uncler tlx.A 1. Then, there rvas Ia ilure to pal the bprrou,ed arnount leacling to filing of the suit. 1'he petitioner oi;posecl thc suit claim by filing u'ritten stateme: :. After hearing ) -! the argumcnts of respondent, when the matter rn,as postecl lbr argumerlts of petition er / defendan t, an additional issue has bct,rr framed. As the respondent reported no furlher evidence. tl,rc matter ',vas posted for the petitioner,s evidence i.e. defendant,s evidence. At that stage, the petition uncler revision rvas filed 1o scnd Dx.A I / Promissory note dated I O.O9.2O I 3 to a handu.ritir-rq expert. The learned Trial Court dismissed the application leadirle to filing of the present Civil Revision petition.

4. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that there arc corrections with respect to date portion of promissory. note ill Ex.A1 datecl 1O.09.2013 *,herein the month rvhich is reflectecl irs '1 ' to denote the month of January was corrected as ,9, to denotc the month Scptember. In vieu, of the corrections, it is pleaded ,.}-rirt Ex.A1 ought to have been referred for an expert opinion to prov(l forgerl' and fabrication. Without assigning an-\. reason a-bou1 forgery a'rcl labrication, the petition has been dismissed i, vieri.rr' the directior-r given b.y the High court to complete the triar rvrthi, three months. The learned Trial Court clid not consicler tlrt. pleading in the r.r,ritten statement that Ex.A t promissory notc is forged and fabricated. Hence, prayecl that the revision petition bc allowed. 3

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner rr:tt rrecl to Ex.A 1 promissory note artrl contended that promrss r l/ note dated I 0.O 1.2O l3 is corrected b.r, aclding a small cirr__le at the top of numerical ,1, to clcr.rote .9, irr the month r.e. lC. )1.2O13 to be ciepicted as 10.O9.2O 13. In order to prove this tir r:-ication, it is necessar v* 1o sencl ttre clisputecl clocument for an [,'rrrther, it is submitterl that the onl.v reason lbr r r smrssing the application is clirection of this Court to dispose of tl r suil. rvithin a period of threr: months. In case, opportunity is I tt given, the .judgment passed u.oulcl [;r. similar to that of an ex p: -!e decree. In order to give an opportunit.\. to the petitioner to dei trci his case, there is a need 1o allou, t he applicatior-r. € <pert opinion () ln response, the learnecl counsel for the respondent subrnitted that l,x.A I u,:rs proclrrcecl iva-y back in tlr , -vear 20 i6 aiong u'ith the plaint. The petitioner l.rad knou,ledge a ) )ut the said docurnents from in the .year 2O16 onrnards. Further, ,lx.Ai vgas markcd in the r ear 2O 17. .l.hereafter, after the t__o rpletion of arguments of respondcn t / plaintiff, rvhen the matter vas posted lbr arguments of petitioner/clefendant, two i : r:rlocutory aPplications rvere filed to frame an aclclitional or not the respondent l'hcreafter, apart from the petition under present lssue as o r.l,.hether having license for lendir Ei monev revrslr I and two IS L !!-- 4 more applications n'ere filed to recall PWI for cross examinatiutl on the additional issue and to rcopen petitioner/defendant siclr' evidcnce. Since the petition undet' revision is filed to scncl tllc disputed document lor expert opinion after lapse of six vears, thc petitron was dismissecl. 7 . The sequence of events shou's that in a simple suit for recovery of monel based on promissory note and receipLs, the respondent/ plaintiff u'as examined u'ay back in the year 2017 and Ex.A1 was marked. Thereafter, there is progress of the suit till arguments. At the stage of petitioner/ defendant arguments, tu'o interlocutory applications uere ltlcd vide I.A.Nos.4O2 and rl0-l c[ 2023 to lrame additional issue by reopening the case. Additronal issue u,as framed an<l the rcspondent herein reported tro f'-trtht't- evidence. Thereafter, the petitioner herein instead of leadirrg evidence about the aclclitional issue, filed the present applicatiorl under revision to send the clocumcnts to an expert opiniorl This exercise could have ben taken up before the suit progressecl to Lhc stage of arguments of petitioner. In case, the plea of forgery ancl fabrication was taken at the time of filing of the written statement itself, nothing prevented the petitioner from referring the document for an expert opinion at an earlier stage after marking of the exhibit rn the year 2077. Instead, the petitioner hereir-t 5 conr:eniently $,aited for the matter to progress u I ro the stage o[ argLrmenls aDcl ir-r the face of thc order passed _. this Court in CRP No.3085 ol '2022 to dispose of the suit rvithi r three months fiom 20.O1.2023, has choserl to file interlocutr -',r zrpplications u'hictr u,ould considcrabl-y dela.y the disposal. 'l.l . leerrne<I Trial Court has taken tn,o reasons into consideration o. I he petition being filed after lapse of sk l,ears and Lhe ortl: given b1' this Court to dispose of the suit withirr three months, ,r hile dismissing tl're petition.

8. A perusal of the record shows that the <:r r rect ions in the month of the promisson' note is a defense takerr in the r.r.ritten stafement rvhich rvas llled on 26.12.2016. There is a reference o[ filing of tu,o more suits bt, thc respondcnt t. his u,ife in O.S.Nos.123 and 144 and 129 of 2016 an( payment of Rs. 1 1,OO,O00/ b-v the petitioner for which rece.ipt dated '22.03.2016 u,as passed bt' the respondent in far,,-r . - of petitioner- 1'he promissory note is in the hanclu,riting of the i)(,r itioner himself ancl the said fact is not denied. The petitioner cotrl: have filed the present application to refer the documents for an e;r r,:rt opinion at least at the stage rvhen the matter \\'as posted for petitioner/ defendan t evidence. Instead, he waited tr rtil the matter w,as posted for petitioner's argurnents and then ca I (. up with the 6 present application along u.ith tu,o more applications to recall PWI for cross examination on the additional issue and to reol)( n petitioner/ defendant siclc' evidencc. 'l'he conduct of the petitioner does not inspire confidetrce about contesting the case lairlv on merits. The conduct shou's rather an attempt at protracting the proceedings by coming up rvith applications n hich could l-rave been hled at the earliest stage immediately after framing of issues in the year 2O17. Thereforc, this Court sees no ground to interfere u'ith the impugnecl orcler I In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismisserl confirming the order passed bv the learned Senior Civil Judge at Miryalaguda in I.A.No.16 ol 20'24 in O.S.No.729 of 2016, datecl

12.O2.2024. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, strall srarrcl closcd. No costs SD/. K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, I a J 4 The file of Senior Civil Judge at Miryalaguda. One CC to Mr. P PRABHAKAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Mr. HAR| KTSHAN KUD|KALA, Advocate tOpUCl Two CD Copies 4,^w HIGH COURT DATED: 3011012025 t () * it-:i c( I I iF l I(u * \rcF{ r-p ORDER CRP.No.1026 of 2024 Accordingly, this C.R.P. is Dismissed. b \z 1b