SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(AP) 1212

GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
Pamu Padmavathi – Appellant
Versus
Perati Yakub Reddy – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate appeared.
Counsel appeared :Mamidi Venu Madbav, Counsel for the Petitioner.

ORDER :- This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.7.2007 made in I.A. No.4 of 2005 in O.S. No.67 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, whereby, the trial Court refused to send the suit promissory note dated 5.12.2000 to an expert for comparing the signature on the promissory note with the admitted signature of the defendant, who is the petitioner herein.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff instituted O.S. No.67 of 2001 for recovery of money the foot of the promissory note. At a stage when the trial was in progress, the defendant i.e., the petitioner herein, filed the present application stating that expert's opinion is required for comparison of his signature, and the trial Court, as stated above, dismissed the petition.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record.

4. In spite of the fact that the respondent-plaintiff was served with the notice, he has not put in his appearance either in person or through his advocate.

5. Evidently, it is an old suit of the year 2001 and the point involved in the suit is very simple. For comparison of any signature on the suit


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top