Chundru Srinivasa Rao v. (V.V.S.RAO, J)

The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.44 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. The suit is for recovery of money filed by the respondent. In the written statement filed by the petitioner herein, inter alia, he took a plea that the suit promissory note is forged. After completion of the trial, the matter is coming up for arguments. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2537 of 2008 for sending the suit promissory note to the handwriting expert. The said application was dismissed by the Court below, aggrieved by which, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and that it is a fit case to send the document to the handwriting expert under Section 45 read with Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the trial Court has committed any error in refusing to send the suit promissory note to the handwriting expert?

While dismissing the application, the trial Court observed as follows. is commenced and he preferred …It is true the petitioner/defendant took plea of forgery in his written statement and basing on the same issue is framed. It is also true the petitioner/defendant kept quiet till trial of the this petition on 19.12.2008 when the suit is coming for cross of P.W.1 that to when matter is adjourn on costs of Rs.50/-. Therefore the contention petitioner/defendant is trying to delay the proceedings cannot be ruled out. Moreover the petitioner filed a sale deed dated 16.09.2009 said to be executed by himself along with others respondent/plaintiff on 14.06.2005, requesting this Court to send the said sale deed along with suit pronote for the purpose of comparison by the expert. If really the petitioner has bonafides he would have filed the said document along with this petition in the year 2008 without waiting till 16.09.2009.

A perusal of the material on record shows that the trial of the suit is already completed and the suit is coming for arguments. Both sides adduced evidence and the suit is of the year 2006. More over Court can examine documents as per Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act and court can use the magnifying lens for comparison of signatures. For the said reason I am not inclined to grant the relief sought… After giving anxious consideration to the submissions, I am learned Judge gave sound reasons while convinced dismissing the application. Interference is not called for. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed.

20.08.2010 __________________

(V.V.S.RAO, J)