THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

ORDER

1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Order passed by the XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad in I.A.No.215 of 2019 in OS.No.382 of 2009, dated 06.12.2022.

2. Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondent is the defendant in OS.No.382 of 2009.

3. Petitioner has filed IA.No.215 of 2019 under Order 16 Rule 1 & 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) r/w Section 151 of CPC to summon Smt.P.Rajani, FSL Expert, Red Hills, Hyderabad as PW.3 to give evidence which is assailed in the CRP.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court ought to have allowed I.A.No.215 of 2019 instead of dismissing the same and also failed to see that the petitioner-plaintiff has to prove the FSL report and mere marking of the document is not sufficient. The learned trial Court failed to see that the judgments of the Criminal Courts are not binding on the Civil Courts and that the petitioner-plaintiff is entitled to prove his case by adducing appropriate evidence. The respondent-defendant has denied the execution of Ex.A1 specifically in the written statement and prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order passed by the learned trial Court.

5. Notice got issued to the sole respondent is refused. Hence, it amounts to deemed service.

6. Petitioner has filed suit against the respondent vide OS.No.382 of 2009 for recovery of Rs.15,21,260/- basing on the copy of the authorization letter given by the respondent-defendant on 21.02.2006 and the cheque dated 13.07.2006 for Rs.10,00,000/-.

7. Respondent who is the defendant in the suit denied the execution of the above said documents.

8. The GPA Holder of the petitioner by name Ramesh Jain has filed affidavit in IA.No.215 of 2019 and contended that after filing the suit by the petitioner-plaintiff for recovery of Rs.15,21,260-27 Ps, respondent-defendant has also filed suit in OS.No.489 of 2010 to receive the balance loan amount of Rs.17,47,955/- and to return the pledged gold ornaments and the respondent has issued sale authorization letter to the petitioner to dispose of the ornaments and the same is marked as Ex.A1. The respondent in full and final settlement of the loan account has issued cheque dated 13.07.2006 for Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, Malakpet Branch. Cheque was returned unpaid due to drawer’s signature differs and insufficiency of fund in the Bank Account. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘N.I.Act’) and the present suit for recovery of money. Respondent-defendant has filed a private complaint in Crime No.1308 of 2007 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy, L.B.Nagar, during the course of investigation P.S. Saroornagar has sent Ex.A1 for opinion of the Forensic Expert at Hyderabad. Smt.P.Rajani gave opinion on 31.01.2008 categorically stating that “the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures and writings marked S1 to S25 also wrote the red enclosed signature marked as Q1 and Q2 i.e., the signature on Ex.A1 belongs to the respondent herein.

9. Respondent filed his counter denying the contents of the petition averments and further contended that she was acquitted in CC.No.135 of 2011 which is filed by the petitioner under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The petitioner has carried the matter in Appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.276 of 2012 which also came to be dismissed. When the issuance of cheque and the complaint were not proved, the other aspects of calling Expert before the Civil Court by wasting the valuable time of the Court as well as the Experts whose services are validly elsewhere.

10. The learned Trial Court basing on the contentions of the parties has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner vide I.A.No.215 of 2019 dated 06.12.2022 holding that the evidentiary value of the report of the Expert