Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

TELANGANA HIGH COURT
K. Lakshman, J.
Balagam Nageswara Rao – Petitioner
versus
Rapolu Prabhakar – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition Nos.2343,
2345, 2364 and 3077 of 2023
Decided on 3.11.2023

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel
For the Respondent: Mr. Eriga Ganesh, learned counsel

IMPORTANT POINT
Expert opinion – Power to seek expert opinion under Section 45 of Evidence Act, 1872 is discretionary and depends on facts of each case – Courts can refuse expert opinion only when no doubt exists regarding genuineness of signatures after comparison of admitted and disputed signatures.

Headnote:
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 45 and 73 – Expert opinion – Promissory Note – Recovery suit – Comparison of disputed signature – Power to seek expert opinion under Section 45 of Act, 1872 is discretionary and depends on facts of each case – Courts shall normally seek expert opinion when they are posed with a situation where they have to compare admitted and disputed signatures – Courts can refuse expert opinion only when no doubt exists regarding genuineness of signatures after comparison of admitted and disputed signatures – In cases where even a slightest doubt exists, Courts shall send admitted and disputed signatures for expert opinion under Section 45 of Act, 1872 – No prejudice would be caused to plaintiff in the event of sending suit promissory note to Expert for opinion – Said information will be useful to Trial Court in deciding lis involved in present suit effectively – Petition allowed. (Paras 13 and 18, 20 and 24)
Result: First Appeals disposed of with observations.

ORDER (COMMON)

The lis involved in these civil revision petitions and the parties are one and the same. Therefore, the same were heard together and decided by way of this common order:—

2. Heard Mr. C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Eriga Ganesh, learned counsel for the respondent.

(for sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in suit O.S.No.199 of 2019)

3. These revisions are filed by the defendant. C.R.P.No.2343 of 2023 is filed challenging the orders all dated 13.07.2023 in I.A.No.3 of 2023; C.R.P.No.2345 of 2023 is filed against the orders in I.A.No.2 of 2023; C.R.P.No.2364 of 2023 is filed against the order in I.A.No.5 of 2023 and C.R.P.No.3077 of 2023 is filed against the order in I.A.No.04 of 2023 in O.S.No.119 of 2019 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem.

4. The plaintiff had filed a suit vide O.S.No.119 of 2019 against the defendant seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- with subsequent interest basing on promissory note dated 25.05.2017. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff that both the plaintiff and the defendant are Drivers in TSRTC and thus, they are acquainted with each other. With the said acquaintance, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his family necessities on 25.05.2017 and he had executed the subject promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Despite demands, the defendant failed to pay the said amount. Therefore, he had filed the said suit against the defendant for recovery.

5. The defendant filed written statement denying borrowing of the said amount and also execution of the suit promissory note. In paragraph No.12 of the written statement, defendant had specifically contended that the signature on the alleged suit promissory note does not belong to him, as such he reserves right to send the alleged promissory note to the Expert to compare his signature on the alleged suit promissory note since the said signature is rank forged by the plaintiff and his men.

6. To prove the said claim, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1, and P.W.2 and P.W.3 attestors to the said promissory note. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1. The suit is posted for arguments. At this stage, the defendant has filed four Interlocutory Applications viz I.A.2 of 2023 to recall him (D.W.2) for marking of attendance register to be called from the employer, I.A.No.3 of 2023 to recall D.W.1 for further marking of Attendance Register, I.A.No.4 of 2023 to send suit promissory note to the Expert for opinion. I.A.No.5 of 2023 to call for the Attendance Register pertaining to the defendant who worked as RTC Driver vide Staff No.326090 from the Depot Manager, TSRTC, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, on the following grounds:—

(i) He never executed the suit promissory note.

(ii) The plaintiff created the suit promissory note in collusion with P.Ws.2 and 3.

(iii) The plaintiff forged his signature.

(iv) His signature is rank forged.

(v) The said facts were also mentioned by him in the written statement itself.

(vi) The plaintiff taking advantage of his acquaintance, created the suit promissory note and filed the present suit for wrongful gain.

(vii) During cross-examination, plaintiff had admitted that the suit promissory note was executed by the defendant on 25.05.2017 at his residence, Palvancha at about 4.30 P.M.

(viii) Even P.Ws.2 and 3 the alleged attestors, during their cross- examination, admitted that the transaction took place between 4.30 to 5.00 P.M. on 25.05.2017. He was on duty on 25.05.2017.

(ix) In order to prove the same, calling for the Attendance Register from the employer to mark the said Attendance Register on calling from the employer by reopening his evidence and recalling him is necessary.

7. The aforesaid applications were opposed by the plaintiff on the following grounds:—

(i) The defendant has executed suit promissory note on 25.05.2017.

(ii) To prove the sa