HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1272 OF 2025

ORDER

Heard Mr. Ravikumar Vadlakonda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pochaiah Dorishetti, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This revision is filed challenging the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar in I.A. No.341 of 2024 in O.S. No.125 of 2018 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.125 of

2018, while the respondent herein is the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit vide O.S. No.125 of 2018 against the petitioner herein - defendant for recovery of Rs.6,88,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum thereon from the date of suit till realization based on promissory note dated 15.07.2015 along with receipt alleged to have executed by the petitioner herein.

4. During the course of cross-examination of PW.1 (Plaintiff), the defendant’s counsel confronted copies of receipt dated 22.11.2017 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant and memorandum of understanding, dated 21.10.2014 drafted and written by the plaintiff in his own writing executed among the parties to the suit and son-in-law of the defendant, and the same were denied by the plaintiff. However the said documents were marked as Exs.B1 and B2 through petitioner - defendant during the course of his evidence. At that stage, the defendant filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A. No.341 of 2024 in O.S.No.125 of 2018 under Section - 45 of the Act, 1872 to send Exs.B1 and B2 along with the admitted hand-writing of the plaintiff or to direct him to attend before the Court to take his hand-writing and signatures to send the same to the handwriting Expert for comparison on the ground that the hand-writings on Exs.B1 and B2 are of the plaintiff and to prove the same, it is required to send them to the handwriting expert for comparison.

5. The respondent - plaintiff opposed the said petition contending that there is no reference with regard to Exs.B1 and B2 in the written statement and, therefore, the same cannot be sent for expert’s opinion.

6. After hearing both sides, vide order dated 05.03.2025, learned trial Court dismissed the said application (I.A. No.341 of

2024) holding that the contents of Ex.B2 are contrary to the pleadings in the written statement and that there is no pleading in the written statement with regard to Exs.B1 and B2 and, therefore, it is not necessary to send them to handwriting expert.

7. Challenging the said order, dated 05.03.2024 in I.A.No.341 of 2024, the petitioner - defendant filed the present revision.

8. Mr. Ravikumar Vadlakonda, learned counsel for the petitioner - defendant would submit that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if Exs.B1 and B2 are sent to the handwriting expert. Though there is no reference with regard to Exs.B1 and B2 in the written statement, the same were confronted to PW.1 during cross- examination. Unless Exs.B1 and B2 are sent to hand-writing expert, the petitioner will not be in a position to prove his case that the subject promissory note was given by him to the plaintiff for security purpose.

Therefore, the trial Court erred in dismissing the petition.

9. On the other hand, Mr. Pochaiah Dorishetti, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the petitioner filed the present petition at the belated stage with an intention to drag on the proceedings. The petitioner did not plead in his written statement with regard to existence of Exs.B1 and B2, nor filed along with written statement and, therefore, he has not laid foundation to seek the relief under Section - 45 of the Act, 1872. Considering all the said aspects, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition vide impugned order and there is no error in it.

10. In view of the aforesaid rival submissions and perusal of record would reveal that the respondent - plaintiff filed the suit vide O.S. No.125 of 2018 against