Venkota Reddg Vs. Padata Venkata Reddg uas not vs Numburu Mohan Rao. The Judgment relied bg the Court

..Respondent/Plaintiff. ... Respondent/ Defendant No.2. lA NO: 7 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in thc affidavit filed in support of the petition, the l{igh Court may be plcased to stay al1 further proceedings in OS No.153 of 2015 pending on the file of the Principal District Judge, Khammam, pending disposal of the main CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri CH.Ravinder. Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri Tarun Ram Aitham. Counsel for the Respondent No.2: -- 'lhe Court made the following: ORDER I I I HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR Ciwil Revision Petition No.1768 of 2o24 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is hled under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 13.O3.2024 passed in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.153 of 2015 on the file of Principal District Judge at Khammam

2. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the O.S.No. 153 of 2015 and respondents herein are the plaintifl's. The said suit is filed frrr recovery of money under Section 26 & Order-7, Rule- 1 of' C. P. C. . The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent in O.S.No. 153 of 2O 15 claims that defendant Nos.l & 2 have approached the plantiff on

23.O9.2012 zrnd borrowed an amount of Rs.2O,00,OO0/- and after receipt of the said consideration amount, the Defendant No.1 has exe cuted a promissory note in favour of plaintiff on

23.O9.2012 as collateral security and agreed to repay the same along with interest and Defendant No.2 stood aS guarantor for the said transaction. Thereafter, plaintiff made several request for repayment of borrowed amount, but the defendants postponed the payment of borrowed amount on one pretext or the other. On 08.04.2015, the defendant No.l has issued cheque vide bearing No.032722, dated 08.04.2O15, drawn for I I 2 Rs.42,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of the borrowed amount. Thereafter, plaintiff had presented the said cheque for encashment, but the said cheque as dishonoured with an endorsement as "Payment stopped by the drawer", vide memo dated 09.04.2015. Aggrieved by the same plaintiff preferred OS No. 153 of 20 15 before the Principai District Judge, at Khammam.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner herein has filed IA No.3 of 2022 in OS No.153 of 2O 1 5 seeking a direction to send the Promissory note dated

23.O9.201,2 to Forensic Science laboratory, Red Hill, Hyderabad for determination of the age of ink of signature and the disputed writing in the body of the promissory note. The Trial Court dismissed the said IA No.3 of 2022 in OS No. 153 of

2015. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners fiied CRP No. 155 of 2023 against the order passed in IA No.3 of 2022 in OS No.153 of 2075 and this Court on 1I.1O.2O23 passed the following order: "13. The aboue judgment is squarely applg to the instant case and the application fiIed bg the petitioner is liable to be allou.ted for sending the expert to Forensic Science Laboratory for determining the age of the signature of the petitioner. ,

14. The unreported Judgment relied bg the Court belouL passed bg the High Court of Andhrd Pradesh in Nallamilli Venkota Reddg Vs. Padata Venkata Reddg uas not considered the Judgment in Namineni Audi Seshaiah Vs. Numburu Mohan Rao. The Judgment relied bg the Court beloul is not applg to the instant case and the impugned order passed bg the Court belotu i-s contrary to the Judgment passed bg this Court in Namineni Audi Seshaiah Vs. Numburu Mohan Rao.

15. In uieu.t of the same, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the petition filed bg the petitioner is to be allouted.

16. In uieu of the aboue findirLgs, the Ciuil Reuision Petition is ollouted bg setting aside the Order dated 15.12.2022 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.153 of 2O15 on the fiIe of the Principal Distict Judge, Khammam and consequentially allou.t the I.A.No.3 of 2O22 in O.S.No.153 of 20 1 5. There shaLl be no ord.er as to cosrs. " Thereafter, petitioner filed IA No.4 of 2024 in OS No.153 of 2015 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act R/w Section 151 CPC to send the promissory note to FSL, Red Hills, Hyclerabad for determination of the tint of the ink with regard to signature and the disputed handwriting in the body. The Trial Court sent the promissory note, dated O8.Ol.2o24to FSL, Hyderabad for determining the age of the ink of his signal,ure of the disputed handwriting in the body, but the saine was returned by the FSL, vide File No.Doc/GEN/2024/77, dated 1 17 .O1 .2024 , which reads as: "With reference to the letter cited aboue, it is inform you that, it is not possible to offer ang opinion on the Age of Ink/ Age of signature and u.titing. Hence, the docu.ments receiued are hereu.tith returned."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that basing on the above said statement, the Trial court passed the order in IA No.4 of 2024 in OS No.i53 of 2015, dated

13.O3.2024, which reads as: "The plaintiff filed counter opposing the petition. She submitted that guarantor, scribe and witnesses can use different pens. The 1st defendant did not take plea in his cross- examination uith regard to use of pen bg the persons who signed in Ex.Al. Therefore, the petition for sending Ex.Al for determining the tint of the ink is not maintainable. The tint of the ink u.till not help in adjudicating the matter. The suit is of the gear 2O15 and he is aged 65 gears. The 1st defendant hos been filing petition one afier another just to drag on the mater.

5. The defen se of the 1st defendant is that the signature in Ex.A1 is of the gear 2010. It is not sLtoun as to how the determination of the tint of the ink utill help in prouding the said defense. Therefore, the lst defendont's praAer cannot be granted." 5 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner submi ts that Trial Court ought lo have send the promrssory note to another Forensic Science Laboratories (FSL) instead ofpassing the said order.

6. Sri Tamn Ram Aitham, Iearned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner ought to have made another application before the Trial Court to send the promlssory note to another FSL and without availaling alternative remedy under law, the petitioner has straight awav filed this reyision petition

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner pray this Court to grant liberty to lile appropriate application before the Trial Court for sending the promissory note before aaother FSL and direct the Trail Court to consider and pass appropriate orders. Iearned counsel for the respondents did not dispute the 8 same.

9. Recording the submission made by both the 1earned counsel and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Civil Revision petition is disposed of granting -:\. 6 liberty to the petitioner to hle appropriate application 1n O.S.No. 153 of 2015 and thereafter, the trial Court shall consider the same ald after giving a fair opportunity of hearing to both the parties, shall pass appropriate orders within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of filing of said application, in accordance to law.

10. With the above directions this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, sha-ll stand closed. No order as to costs. I I //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Principal District Judge, Khammam. 2. One CC to Sri Ch.Ravinder, Advocate IOPUC-| 3. One CC to Sri Tarun Ram Aitham, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies. ICK/gh o A Sd/. V. KAVITHA TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICE h -t - ...t HIGI-I COURT DATED13/07/2025 ORDER CRP.No.1768 of 2024 I ( J o o I i 1H E. S'rr\ 16 \,A { v 2 7 t'l[B ?ifi * D6S PATCl .A * z.j Disposing of the C.R.l'. u'ithout costs {