SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 337

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B.S. BHANUMATHI, J
CHILUVURI RAJAM RAJU – Appellant
Versus
DATLA SATYANARAYANA RAJU – Respondent


Advocates:
P VENKATA RAMA SARMA, JOSYULA BHASKARA RAO

Table of Content
1. suit for recovery (Para 2 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16)
2. application for ink age (Para 3)
3. opposition to application (Para 4)
4. revision petition outcome (Para 15)

ORDER:

This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against Order dated 29.02.2024 dismissing I.A.No.32 of 2024 in O.S.No.1175 of 2019 on the file of the Court of V Additional Civil judge (Junior Division) at Kakinada filed by the defendant under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 CPC to send the suit promissory note dated 02.11.2016 marked as Ex.A1 to a Government forensic lab to determine the age of the ink used in Ex.A1.

2. The respondent filed the suit against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.13,73,866/- (Principal amount of Rs.8,00,000/-) basing on Ex.A1. The petitioner filed a written statement denying borrowal of any amount at any time from the plaintiff and pleading, among other grounds, that the pronote was forged and fabricated and not executed nor was it signed by him and that the suit was filed to harass him and his family members in view of some dispute between his brother and the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top