Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 556
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
M. Ganga Rao, J.
Pokala Poli Reddy Died - Appellant
Versus
Kambala Gurivi Reddy - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 2510 of 2019
Decided On : 01-10-2020
G. Ramesh Babu, Advocate
The court can summon documents from a bank for handwriting expert opinion even after the evidence is closed, if it is necessary for the ends of justice.
Headnote:
ORDER XIII RULE 10 CPC - SUMMONING OF DOCUMENTS - ORDER XVI RULE 6 CPC - PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - RULE 129 AP CIVIL RULES OF PRACTICE & CIRCULAR ORDERS, 1980 - SUMMONING OF PUBLIC OFFICER - REOPENING OF SUIT - HANDWRITING EXPERT OPINION - The Court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the application to summon documents from a bank for handwriting expert opinion, as it would not prejudice the defendant and would aid in determining the genuineness of the disputed document.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant to recover a loan amount based on an unregistered simple mortgage deed. The defendant denied borrowing the money or executing the mortgage deed, claiming it was forged. The trial court allowed the plaintiffs' application to send the mortgage deed for handwriting expert examination, but the FSL returned it for want of more admitted signatures. The plaintiffs then filed an application to summon the relevant documents from the bank, which was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that it was not maintainable as the suit evidence was closed and the suit was posted for arguments.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the application. It observed that the trial court should have allowed the application as it would not prejudice the defendant and would aid in determining the genuineness of the disputed document. The court also noted that the trial court could have summoned the public officer under Rule 129 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice & Circular Orders, 1980 to produce the documents.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application to summon documents from a bank for handwriting expert opinion.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the application. It observed that the trial court should have allowed the application as it would not prejudice the defendant and would aid in determining the genuineness of the disputed document. The court also noted that the trial court could have summoned the public officer under Rule 129 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice & Circular Orders, 1980 to produce the documents.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the civil revision petition and set aside the trial court's order dismissing the application. It directed the trial court to reopen the suit and issue summons to the bank manager to produce the relevant documents for handwriting expert opinion.
JUDGMENT
M Ganga Rao, J. - The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 11.06.2019 passed in I.A.No.166 of 2018 in I.A.No.1137 of 2017 in O.S.No.189 of 2012 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, whereby the application filed under Order XIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to summon the schedule documents 1 and 2 from Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank at Kotha Nellore Branch and to send them to the Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory along with suit document for examination, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/ plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.189 of 2012 against the respondent/defendant to pass a decree directing the defendant to pay the suit amount of Rs.4,61,550/- with future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization (amended as per orders in I.A.No.3679 of 2012 dated 17.07.2013), based on the original unregistered simple mortgage deed dated 18.05.2009 in respect of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.0.95 cents in Circar Punji D.No.418/A-1-A and an extent of Ac.0.25 cents in Circar Punji D.No.411/3 of Chemmullapalli Grama Polam, Chemmullapalli Gram Panchayat, Khajipeta Mandal, Kadapa District.
3. The respondent/defendant filed written statement denying the borrowing of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the deceased plaintiff and execution of simple mortgage deed dated 18.05.2009 in favour of deceased plaintiff. He specifically pleaded that he never borrowed any amount from the deceased plaintiff at any point of time and that the alleged mortgage deed is a rank forged document. He also pleased that he never signed on the alleged mortgage deed and the signatures on the said document is not belonging to him.
4. When the execution of the mortgage deed itself was denied by the defendant, it appears that the 2nd plaintiff (since the 1st plaintiff was died, the 2nd plaintiff was added as his legal heir as per the orders in I.A.No.634 of 2016 dated 2504.2016) filed I.A.No.1137 of 2017 to send the suit document for handwriting expert for examination for comparison of the signature of the defendant with the admitted signatures. The said I.A. was allowed by the trial Court on 22.03.2018. Accordingly, the trial Court directed the office on 10.07.2018 to send the suit document along with admitted signatures to the FSL, but the same was returned for want of more admitted signatures. Therefore, the petitioner filed I.A.No.166 of 2018 to call for the schedule documents from Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank at Kotha Nellore Branch in order to send them to the handwriting expert. The trial Court dismissed the said application stating that the application is filed without seeking the reopen of suit since the evidence on the side of plaintiff and defendant was closed long back. Further, the suit is an identified Pre-2014 case for disposal. On 26.04.2017, the suit was posted for defendant's side evidence and defendant's side evidence was completed on 29.01.2019. The suit was posted for arguments on 31.01.2019, 06.02.2019 and 25.02.2019 and at that stage, the impugned application is filed. Hence, the same was dismissed as not maintainable. Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.166 of 2018 in I.A.No.1137 of 2017 in O.S.No.189 of 2012, this civil revision petition is filed.
5. Heard Sri G.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner. No appearance is made by the respondent in spite of service of notice on 28.09.2019.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Judge committed manifest error in dismissing the I.A., without appreciating the fact that the present application is filed only to meet the requirement of handwriting expert and dismissed the present application would lead to defeat the purpose for which earlier I.A.No.1137 of 2017 was allowed. The dismissal of I.A. by the trial Judge on the ground that the present application is filed without seeking reopen
