Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J.
Virothi Tirupathi Rao – Appellant
Versus
Kota Venu – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition Nos. 2792 & 2798 of 2014
Decided On : 30-03-2016
Civil Law – Civil Suit – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 227 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VIII – Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 – Suit for recovery of money – Defendant is resisting said suit inter-alia contending that suit is a false suit and is filed by forging the signature at the instance and instigation of Kota Venkata Vasudeva Rao and his brother and in gross collusion, connivance and conspiracy with them – Indeed, this defendant had also filed against Kota Venkata Vasudeva Rao the suit OS.no.186 of 2009 on file of court of learned XIII Additional District Judge for recovery of amount with interest and costs and also OS. Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka for recovery of Rs.6,00,000/- with subsequent interest and costs – Held, but on an elaborate consideration of the entire materials on the record – That being so, even the question of weight in regard to the evidence of D. W. cannot, now in the circumstances, arise for consideration – Thus, finding given by the Court below on question of payment of Rs. 2,200/- by plaintiff to Anandi Sah now stands concluded – Facts of the cited case show that the property in dispute in that case is a house property and defence put up by the defendants who had contested the suit is that the story set up by the plaintiff about payment of Rs.2,200/- to Anandi Sah was false and that receipt/exhibit A4 therein was forged and fabricated document – Defendants examined DW8 the private expert; considering the entire evidence brought on record, a finding was recorded by the Court below on the question of non payment of Rs.2,200/- by the plaintiff to the said Anandi Sah and the said finding is based not exclusively on the evidence of DW8 but on elaborate consideration of the entire material on record. In the instant case on hand, the disputed document is not a document signed by a third party to the suit – It is very suit document namely the suit promissory note – No explanation is forthcoming from the defendant as to why he could not make a request to Court below by filing an application in accordance with the procedure established by law to send the document disputed as well as the documents containing admitted and standard signatures to an expert for comparison and furnishing a report – If only the possibility to obtain an opinion under the orders and supervision of Court is ruled out, then, may be in a given rarest of rare case, a private opinion obtained from a private expert may be permitted to be filed but not in a case of this nature – Having regard to facts peculiar to this case, this Court has already recorded reasoned findings while confirming the findings of the Court below; and the said reasons are sufficient to say that decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant do not advance his case any further – Court below was justified in refusing to receive on file experts report/opinion and to summon expert for giving evidence – Civil Revision Petitions dismissed.(Paras 8, 9, 10 and 11)
1. These two revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the unsuccessful petitioner/defendant are directed against the common orders dated 19.08.2014 of the learned Principal District Judge, Srikakulam passed in IA nos. 850 and 851 of 2014 in OS no. 1 of 2010.
1.1 IA no. 851 of 2014 is filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order VIII Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code, for brevity) to grant leave and permit the petitioner/defendant to file the document viz., report/opinion of Sri Narindra Singh, Director, Documents Division, Truth Labs of Hyderabad, by condoning the delay in filing the said document.
1.2 IA no. 850 of 2014 is filed under Order XVI Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code requesting to issue summons to the said expert Sri Narindra Singh, to appear before the Court and give evidence on behalf of the petitioner/defendant in regard to his opinion furnished to the defendant vide File no.TLH/QD/070/2014 dated 15.04.2014.
2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ defendant (the defendant, for brevity) and the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff (the plaintiff, for brevity). I have perused the material record.
3. The case of the defendant, in brief, is as follows: The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money in a sum of Rs.23,26,000/- with subsequent interest and costs. The said suit is filed on the foot of a promissory note for Rs.15,00,000/-. The defendant is resisting the said suit inter-alia contending that the suit is a false suit and is filed by forging the signature at the instance and instigation of Kota Venkata Vasudeva Rao and his brother Kota Sri Jaggu Naidu and in gross collusion, connivance and conspiracy with them. Indeed, this defendant had also filed against Kota Venkata Vasudeva Rao the suit OS.no.186 of 2009 on the file of the court of the learned XIII Additional District Judge for recovery of Rs.12,00,000/- with subsequent interest and costs and also OS.no.283 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka for recovery of Rs.6,00,000/- with subsequent interest and costs. The said suits are pending. The defendant had also filed CC no.730 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka based on dishonoured cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- issued by the said Kota Venkata Vasudeva Rao. The said CC was disposed of in favour of this defendant on 09.05.2014. Out of vengeance the said Kota Venkata Vasudeva Rao got filed against this defendant, the present suit through the present plaintiff. To disprove the case of the plaintiff and to prove his defence, it has become necessary to file these two petitions viz., one to receive on file the experts report/opinion furnished by the expert Narindra Singh, Director, Documents Division, Truth Labs of Hyderabad by granting necessary leave and by condoning the delay in filing the same; and the other to summon the said expert to give evidence in regard to his said opinion in regard to exhibit A1-promissory note. If the requests in these petitions are not granted, the defendant would suffer serious and irreparable loss.
4. Both the said petitions were resisted by the plaintiff by filing a counter inter-alia contending as follows:
The material allegations in the affidavits filed in support of the two petitions are false. The petitions are filed to drag on the matter. The affidavits are silent as to how the certified copies of the documents, which are referred to in the report/opinion of the expert are obtained. The admitted signatures of the defendant ought to have been obtained in the open court, in case the defendant wanted such signatures to be compared with the disputed signature on the promissory note. There is every possibility to manage the expert as the defendant himself has chosen to send the documents to the said expert. Such an opinion/report cannot
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
