THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3429 of 2024

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order 23-09-2024 passed in I.A.No.318 of 2023 in O.S.No.50 of 2019 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge – cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Chennur, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners –

defendants.

2. Heard Sri Laxmalla Sandeep, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Thimmaraju Ramchandar Rao, learned counsel representing Sri A. Sampath Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the record.

3. The petitioners and respondent in the present Civil Revision Petition are defendants Nos.1 and 2 and plaintiff respectively in O.S.No.50 of 2019 pending on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge – cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Chennur.

4. The facts in brief as stated are that the respondent/ plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.50 of 2019 for recovery of money and the suit was coming up for arguments. At that time, the petitioners / defendants submitted that the petitioners have signed on the promissory-note after the limitation period, which the petitioners could not tell to their counsel before trial Court and in view of the same, learned counsel for petitioners before the trial Court did not represent the same before the Court at the time of trial. As there was no representation, when the suit was called for the evidence of defendants, the evidence of defendants was closed and the suit was posted for arguments on 10.08.2023. Thereafter, the petitioners / defendants have filed I.A.No.318 of 2023 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act r/w. Section 151 of CPC., wherein it is stated that the petitioners obtained loan from the respondent / plaintiff by executing a Demand Promissory Note on 11.12.2016 in favour of plaintiff and recently noticed that the signatures on the Demand Promissory Note was before the date of the executed document and in fact the petitioners never executed any document in favour of the respondent on the said date of the document. In view of the same, petitioners filed the aforesaid I.A. requesting to send the document for comparison and age of signatures of the petitioners along with admitted signatures available on Vakalath in the suit to the Handwriting Expert, Forensic Science Laboratories, Red Hills, Hyderabad for report.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent / plaintiff before the trial Court has filed a counter denying the allegations submitted that while recording the evidence before the learned trial Court the petitioners / defendants admitted the execution of the promissory note, as such there is no issue with respect to the execution of promissory note by the petitioners. By way of filing the present petition the petitioners are making contradictory statements than that of the contents of their depositions and the petitioners are estopped from claiming that they have not executed the promissory note as the same is contrary to their depositions. Eventually, learned trial Court dismissed the petition.

6. Learned trial Court upon hearing both sides observed that on a perusal of the docket order dated 27.04.2023 would reveal that both the counsels were present on the said date and the further evidence of defendants was closed as the counsel for petitioners / defendants reported no further evidence. The present I.A. is filed to reopen the case for further evidence of the defendants to adduce the evidence of Handwriting Expert along with I.A.No.319 of 2023 which was filed to compare the signatures of the petitioners with the admitted signatures on the Vakalath, written statement and other documents filed in the suit and also for the report regarding the age of the signature on promissory note, dated 11.12.2016. The said I.A.No.319 of 2023 was dismissed. As the I.A.No.318 of 2023 is pre-matured it is not maintainable and the same was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order in I.A