The court affirmed the necessity of allowing additional evidence for signature verification to ensure a fair trial, particularly when signatures are denied.

COMMON ORDER:

These revision petitions are filed challenging the common order dated 28.08.2024 passed in IA.Nos.658 and 659 of 2024 in OS.No.13 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Adilabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/defendant filed IA.No.658 of 2024 in the said OS., under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘ CPC ’) praying to reopen the evidence for the purpose of summoning the manager of Deccan Grameena Bank, Dwarkanagar, Adilabad, so as to produce the specimen signatures of CW.1 – Nitin Sharma, pertaining to his account lying with the above said branch. He also filed IA.No.659 of 2024 under Order XVI Rule 6 of CPC praying to issue summons to the Manager of the above said bank, so as to produce the account opening form along with PAN card, Aadhar Card, address proof, etc., containing the specimen signatures of CW.1 pertaining to his savings bank account lying with the above said bank. After hearing submissions of both sides, the trial Court passed common order dated 28.08.2024 dismissing both the petitions. Aggrieved thereby, these revision petitions are filed.

3. Heard Sri Aadesh Varma, learnerd counsel for petitioner/defendant, and Sri Soma Ravi Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner/defendant submitted that the impugned common order is contrary to facts, justice, equity, and good conscience. He contended that the trial Court erred in observing that the admitted signatures of CW.1 on record were sufficient for comparison, rendering summoning additional signatures from Deccan Grameena Bank is unnecessary. He further contended that the trial Court erred in observing that the said petitions were filed with an intention to delay proceedings, whereas they were filed to strengthen the case of petitioner. He asserted that the trial court failed to consider the denial of signatures of CW.1 and deposition thereof, necessitating authenticated signatures from a third party. He lamented that the impugned common order relies on assumptions and presumptions, disregarding material on record and the very purpose of filing of petitions. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow the revision petitions, setting aside the common order dated 28.08.2024 passed in IA.Nos.358 and 359 of 2024 in OS.No.13 of 2017.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff, opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner/defendant, contending that a simple recovery suit of Rs. 36,75,294/- was filed based on four promissory notes and two cheques executed by the petitioner/defendant. He submitted that the plaintiff was examined as PW1 on 30.07. 2019, and PW2 also testified, but the defendant failed to cross-examine. He averred that the case record would clear show that the defendant had consistently delayed proceedings through multiple adjournments and frivolous applications. Therefore, while advocating that there are no irregularities in the impugned common order passed by the trial Court, prayed this Court to dismiss the revision petitions.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the petitioner/plaintiff filed two petitions before the trial Court praying to reopen evidence for the purpose of summoning the manager of Deccan Grameena Bank, Dwarkanagar, Adilabad, so as to produce the specimen signatures and other relevant documents such as PAN card and Aadhar card for comparison of signatures.

7. Meticulous perusal of record would reveal that there is no admission of signatures by CW.1. In other words, admittedly, CW.1 denied his signatures. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that if the documents as sought for are produced, it would be easy for the trial Court to compare the signatures appearing on those documents with the signatures that appear on cheques and the same would help the trial Court in deciding the subject matter.

8. In view thereof, these revis