THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2479 2023 Between:

M/s. Adarsh Bio-Tech Private Limited, Rep., by its Managing Driector, T.Babu Rao, Aged 55 years, Occ: Business, Office at 2-11-637, P.M.R. Complex, Above Andhra Bank, Nagole, Hyderabad and another.

………Petitioners And M/s. Srinivasa Polymers, Rep., by its Proprietor, S. Santhi Sree, W/o S. Ravichandar, Aged 44 years, Occ: Proprietor, Plot No.375, Sy. No.248, Subashnaga, Jeedimetla, Ranga Reddy District and three others.

…….Respondents Date of Judgment pronounced on : 08-09-2023 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No May be allowed to see the judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes to Law Reporters/Journals:

3. Whether His Lordships wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No of the Judgment?

___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1512 2023 % 08-09-2023 # M/s. Adarsh Bio-Tech Private Limited, Rep., by its Managing Driector, T.Babu Rao, Aged 55 years, Occ: Business, Office at 2-11-637, P.M.R. Complex, Above Andhra Bank, Nagole, Hyderabad and another.

……… Petitioner Versus $ M/s. Srinivasa Polymers, Rep., by its Proprietor, S. Santhi Sree, W/o S. Ravichandar, Aged 44 years, Occ: Proprietor, Plot No.375, Sy. No.248, Subashnaga, Jeedimetla, Ranga Reddy District and three others.

……. Respondents GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

!Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. C. Kumar, ^Counsel for the respondents : -

? Cases referred

1 (1999) 7 SCC 280 2 (2005) 4 SCC 370 3 1975) 3 SCC 529

4 2005 SCC OnLine AP 43 : AIR 2005 AP 253

5 MANU/TL/0391/2023

6 (2009)13SCC25

7 MANU/BH/0317/2013 : 2014 (2) PLJR 535 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2479 of 2023

ORDER

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 08.07.2023 in I.A.No. 422 of 2023 in O.S.No. 378 of 2014 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District, at Mechal.

2. Heard Sri. C. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

3. The petitioners herein are the Defendants No. 1 & 2 in the suit filed for recovery of money by the Respondent No.1 herein as plaintiff.

4. The Respondent No.1 herein, filed an interlocutory application in the suit under Order 16 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) seeking to summon the ‘Assistant Director, State Forensic Laboratory Telangana State, at Red Hills’ along with FSL Report/Opinion vide Report file No. DCV/523/2018 dated 23.02.2019. The Respondent No.1 claimed that the said document was adduced as evidence in C.C.No.44 of

2012 before the XV M.M. Cyberabad Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the petitioners herein were convicted for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Court below vide the impugned order dated 08.07.2023 allowed the said application. The present revision is filed aggrieved by the said order.

5. It is the case of the petitioners herein that they had preferred Crl.A.No. 734 of 2014 before the III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, against the conviction in C.C.No.44 of 2012; and that vide order dated 28.11.2019, the petitioners herein were acquitted. That apart the petitioners herein contend that the Respondent No.1 had failed to prove the said FSL report by cross-examining the handwriting expert before the trial Court in C.C.No.44 of 2012. By placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jai Lal, [(1999) 7 SCC 280], it is contended that a report submitted by an expert cannot be automatically admitted in evidence unless the said expert is examined as a witness. Thus, it is contended that since the FSL report in question was not proved by the Respondent No.1 in C.C.No. 44 of 2012, no reliance can be placed on the said document.

6. The petitioners further contend that, evidence forming part of and adduced in a crimin