Back
SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Ravi Surya Prakash – Respondent
ORDER :
Subba Reddy Satti, J.
Defendant No.6 in the suit filed the above civil revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. CRP No.1500 of 2010 is filed against an order, dated 02.03.2010 in I.A.No.1724 of 2009 in O.S.No.07 of 2005, filed under Order XVI and Rules 1 and 6 and Section 151 of CPC, on the file of learned Additional District Judge –cum- Judge, Family Court, Eluru.
3. CRP No.1572 of 2010 is filed against an order, dated 02.03.2010 in I.A.No.1723 of 2009 in O.S.No.7 of 2005 on the file of learned Additional District Judge –cum- Judge, Family Court, Eluru.
4. Deceased respondent No.1/plaintiff filed O.S.No.7 of 2005 against the revision petitioner/defendant No.6 and respondents 2 to 8 for recovery of amount on the strength of promissory note said to have been executed by late Pasala Surya Chandra Rao.
5. By filing a written statement, the defendants, are contesting the suit.
6. The evidence of the plaintiff was completed. The suit is coming for the defendants’ evidence. At that stage revision petitioner/defendant No.6 filed I.A.No.1723 of 2009 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to send Ex.A1 promissory note along with the admitted signatur
The court reaffirmed that expert evidence, particularly in handwriting cases, should be approached with caution and is not conclusive without corroboration.
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring subordinate courts act within their jurisdiction, and requests for expert opinion on signatures executed 19 years apa....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the discretion to allow or reject belated applications under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act lies with the Court, and no hard and fast rule....
The time gap between admitted and disputed documents need not be within three years for signature comparison, and the court should consider the defendant's plea in the written statement when deciding....
A party seeking to send a document for expert comparison must provide authentic documents containing admitted signatures; failure to do so results in dismissal of the application.
Expert opinion applications under the Indian Evidence Act can be filed at any stage, and the trial court should not assess document merits before completing the trial.
The allowance of pre-trial applications to send disputed documents for Expert opinion is improper and constitutes a material irregularity.
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
