HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2251 OF 2023

ORDER

Heard Mr. C.A.R. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel representing Mr. Ajay Kumar Madisetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned counsel representing Mr. Ennamsetty Akhil, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This revision is filed challenging the order dated 10.07.2023 passed by Principal District Judge at Hanumakonda in I.A. No.431 of 2023 in O.S. No.135 of 2017 dismissing the petition filed under Section - 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘Act, 1872’).

3. The petitioner herein is the sole defendant in O.S. No.135 of

2017, while the respondent herein is the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the said suit vide O.S. No.135 of 2017 against the petitioner herein - defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.15,83,000/- based on promissory note alleged to have executed by the petitioner herein.

4. During pendency of the aforesaid suit, the petitioner herein had filed an application vide I.A. No.431 of 2023 under Section - 45 of the Act, 1872, seeking to refer Ex.A1-promissory note, Vakalathnama, written statement and original passport to handwriting expert for tallying his signatures with that of admitted signatures on the following grounds:

i) He did not execute the suit promissory note (Ex.A1) at any point of time;

ii) He had not signed on the alleged Ex.A1 and it was created and fabricated one; and iii) He denied execution of Ex.A1 promissory note at the first instance itself i.e., in the written statement filed by him.

i)

5. The respondent - plaintiff filed counter opposing the relief on the following grounds:

i) In the written statement filed by the petitioner, he did not plead or aver that the suit promissory note was forged document;

ii) The petitioner did not made any suggestion about the forgery of Ex.A1 during cross-examination of PW.1;

iii) For the first time, the petitioner denied his signatures and execution of Ex.A1 promissory note in the present petition; and iv) The petitioner filed the aforesaid petition with an intention to delay the proceedings in the suit.

6. Apart from I.A. No.431 of 2023, the petitioner also filed an interlocutory application vide I.A. No.720 of 2023 under Order – VIII, Rule - 1A (3) of the CPC, seeking to receive the original passport for sending the same to hand-writing expert as prayed in I.A. No.431 of

2023.

7. After hearing both sides, learned Principal District Judge, Hanumakonda, vide common order dated 10.07.2023, dismissed the said application (I.A. No.431 of 2023) as well as I.A. No.720 of 2023 on the following grounds:

i) The defendant did not explain as to why he did not choose to take steps for sending the disputed document to hand-writing expert for comparing with his admitted signatures at the earliest point of time;

ii) On 23.02.2023 only the defendant filed aforesaid petitions and after arguments of plaintiff were completed on 15.02.2023;

iii) The suit transaction was dated 04.01.2016, whereas the passport filed by the defendant is dated 25.07.2007. Therefore, it is a document of about 9 years prior to the suit transaction. The defendant did not explain as to why his signatures on passport of 2007 is relevant for comparing with the disputed signature of 2016; and iv) The petition filed by the defendant is without any merits and only with an intention to drag on the proceedings;

8. Challenging the said order, dated 10.07.2023 in I.A.No.431 of 2023, the petitioner - defendant filed the present revision.

9. Mr. C.A.R. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel representing Mr.

Ajay Kumar Madisetty, learned counsel for the petitioner - defendant would submit that the main suit itself is for recovery of money and the defendant has disputed about execution of Ex.A1 alleged promissory note and the signatures thereon in his written statement. Thus, the petitioner - defendant laid foundation at the earliest. Without considering the same, the trial Court dismissed the said application.

Thus, the ord