Civil Revision Petition No. 3500 of 2011 · High Court · 2011

Order

This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the defendant, calling in question the correctness of the orders passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Khammam in IA No. 992 of 2011 moved by him in the suit. The IA was taken out for sending the suit document, the pro-note for examination and opinion of an expert. The respondent has instituted the suit in the year 2007 with specific averments that the petitioner herein borrowed from him a sum of Rs.70,000/- on 9.6.2004 and executed the suit document/the pro-note Ex.A1 on 9.6.2004. The petitioner herein has filed his written statement on

25.10.2007. He merely denied the suit transaction

itself. He has never challenged the plaintiff with the fact that the suit document is a fabricated one nor did he specifically assert that the signature found on the suit document Ex.A1 is not that of him. The plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and he has also examined another witness as PW2. He has also got marked the suit document – pro-note as Ex.A1. Both PWs 1 and 2 were cross-examined by defendant/petitioner. The defendant/petitioner has also been examined as DW1. While the matter was coming up for further evidence of the defendant, the present IA has been moved on 20.7.2011 alleging that the suit document Ex.A1 is the result of forgery and hence it must be referred to an expert for examination and for rendering an opinion. This IA was dismissed essentially assigning two reasons. (1) that the defendant/petitioner has not specifically disputed or denied the execution of the suit pro-note Ex.A1 (2) he has not challenged PW1 that the suit document has been fabricated by him and hence the IA was a belated attempt to bring additional evidence on record now. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Padmanabha Rao, would strenuously contend that in the affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination by DW1, he has specifically asserted that the suit document is a fabricated one and therefore the court below has erred in ignoring the said statement of fact by DW1. It is plain that the deposition affidavit in lieu of chief examination is permitted to cut short the unnecessary consumption of the court time as the experience over long years has revealed that the deponents are basically sticking the version narrated by them either in the plaint or the written statement, as the case may be. Therefore, affidavit in lieu of chief examination has been allowed to be filed. Therefore, such an affidavit has to necessarily confine in its scope and content to the averments contained either in the plaint or suit documents or the written statement, as the case may be. It cannot travel beyond the said scope. I see no error of jurisdiction exercised by the court below in dismissing the IA as the IA has been moved long after the written statement has been filed in the suit without specifically alleging that the suit document is the result of forgery. Therefore, I do not see any reason to entertain the Civil Revision Petition and is accordingly dismissed. But, however, without costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J 16th December 2011