GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
Pamu Padmavathi – Appellant
Versus
Perati Yakub Reddy – Respondent
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.