Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 19447
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B.S. BHANUMATHI, J
Sami Suresh – Appellant
Versus
Thatha Vijaya Lakshmi (died). – Respondent
CRP 58/2024
A.SAI ROHIT, MADHAVA RAO NALLURI
The court affirmed that a party's admission of signatures and amounts on promissory notes negates the need for expert comparison, emphasizing that plaintiffs can fill in blanks as per law.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Indian Evidence Act - Section 45 - Civil Procedure Code - Section 151 - Revision petition against dismissal of application to send promissory notes for expert comparison - Defendant contended promissory notes were fabricated and lacked consideration - Court held that defendant admitted signatures and amounts, thus no need for expert opinion - Dismissal of petition affirmed. (Paras 1, 5, 12)
(B) Admission of Signatures - The court emphasized that the admission of signatures and amounts on the promissory notes by the defendant negated the necessity for expert comparison, as the plaintiff is entitled to fill blanks in the notes. (Paras 5, 9)
Facts of the case:
The defendant filed a revision against the dismissal of a petition to send promissory notes for expert analysis, claiming they were fabricated by the plaintiffs. The defendant admitted to signing the notes but disputed the other contents. (Paras 1, 3)
Findings of Court:
The District Court found no basis for the defendant's request for expert comparison, affirming that the admission of signatures and amounts precluded the need for such analysis. (Paras 5, 12)
Issues: Whether the defendant was entitled to seek expert opinion on the promissory notes after admitting to the signatures and amounts. (Paras 5, 9)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the admission of key elements in the promissory notes by the defendant eliminated the need for expert opinion, reinforcing the principle that a party cannot seek to introduce evidence that contradicts their own admissions. (Paras 5, 12)
Result: Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
ORDER
This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 06.12.2023, dismissing I.A.No.1604 of 2023 in O.S.No.236 of 2017 on the file of the Court of VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, filed by the defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 CPC to send the three suit promissory notes, viz., Ex.A1 to A3, to a competent handwriting expert for comparison of ink and handwriting of dates, amounts in figures and signatures of the petitioner in the three suit promissory notes (Ex.A1 to A3) with the ink and handwriting of the remaining contents of the said three suit promissory notes and to give his opinion.
2. Heard Sri A. Sai Rohit, the learned counsel for the petitioner/ defendant and Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs 2 to 4. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st respondent/plaintiff died and plaintiffs 2 to 4 were impleaded as her legal representatives. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff (1st plaintiff) and defendant for convenience and clarity.
3. The case of the defendant in support of the application, in brief, is as follows:
Originally, the 1st plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money against the defendant on the foot of three fabricated promissory notes.
The defendant filed written statement contesting the suit. The three promissory notes were not supported by consideration. The husband of the 1st plaintiff, i.e., 2nd plaintiff, and the defendant jointly owned a site in Ongole. The three promissory notes, which were partly filled (i.e., date and amount in figures together with the signatures of the defendant, by leaving the other contents blank) were in the custody of the defendant along with the registered sale deed pertaining to the said property. When the 2nd plaintiff requested the defendant to handover the sale deed to him to show it to a prospective purchaser, on the instructions of the defendant over phone, his father handed over the bag containing the three pronotes and sale deed to the 2nd plaintiff. Later, disputes arose between them with regard to the sale transaction of the aforesaid joint site and in view of the disputes, the 2nd plaintiff, who retained the partly filled promissory notes and the registered sale deed with him, misused them and fabricated them by filling up the blanks according to his whims and fancies and converted them into three promissory notes (Ex.A1 to A3) and got filed the present suit by the 1st plaintiff. Hence, it is just and necessary to send the suit promissory notes/Exs.A1 to A3 to an expert for comparison and opinion.
4. The 2nd plaintiff filed counter denying the petition averments and stating that the defendant borrowed the amounts through bank transactions, i.e., Exs.A4 and A5 and in cash from the 1st plaintiff on different dates and executed the suit promissory notes/Exs.A1 to A3 in favour of the 1st plaintiff. The defendant clearly admitted that the signatures, dates and amounts on the suit promissory notes/Exs.A1 to A3 were written by him with his own hand and that the other contents in the said exhibits were not written by him and got filled by the followers of the 1st plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff is entitled to fill the blanks in the promissory note herself or through scribes the gaps left over in the promissory notes by the borrower/defendant. It is not the case of the defendant that the suit promissory notes are time barred or ante dated. Therefore, there is no necessity to compare the amount, dates and signatures of the petitioner/defendant with the ink and handwriting written on the promissory notes/Exs.A1 to A3. The suit promissory notes are of the year 2015 in which the age of the ink cannot be compared by an expert. There are no bona fides on the part of the petitioner in filing the application at this stage, i.e., after lapse of about six (6) years. The petition is intended to drag on the matter to avoid payment
