HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1026 of 2024

ORDER:

1. Heard Mr. P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and Mr. Harikishan Kudikala, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Miryalaguda in I.A.No.16 of 2024 in O.S.No.129 of 2016, dated 12.02.2024, wherein, the said petition filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act seeking to forward Ex.A1 for expert opinion has been dismissed.

3. The background facts are that the suit in O.S.No.129 of 2016 was filed for recovery of Rs.4,57,500/- along with interest on the basis of promissory note dated 10.09.2013 from the defendant. The suit claim arose from monetary transactions involving wholesale and retail sale of textiles wherein the petitioner herein borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as hand loan from the respondent herein on 10.09.2013 by executing a promissory note under Ex.A1. Then, there was failure to pay the borrowed amount leading to filing of the suit. The petitioner opposed the suit claim by filing written statement. After hearing the arguments of respondent, when the matter was posted for arguments of petitioner/defendant, an additional issue has been framed. As the respondent reported no further evidence, the matter was posted for the petitioner’s evidence i.e. defendant’s evidence. At that stage, the petition under revision was filed to send Ex.A1/Promissory note dated 10.09.2013 to a handwriting expert. The learned Trial Court dismissed the application leading to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that there are corrections with respect to date portion of promissory note in Ex.A1 dated 10.09.2013 wherein the month which is reflected as ‘1’ to denote the month of January was corrected as ‘9’ to denote the month September. In view of the corrections, it is pleaded that Ex.A1 ought to have been referred for an expert opinion to prove forgery and fabrication. Without assigning any reason about forgery and fabrication, the petition has been dismissed in view of the direction given by the High Court to complete the trial within three months. The learned Trial Court did not consider the pleading in the written statement that Ex.A1 promissory note is forged and fabricated. Hence, prayed that the revision petition be allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Ex.A1 promissory note and contended that promissory note dated 10.01.2013 is corrected by adding a small circle at the top of numerical ‘1’ to denote ‘9’ in the month i.e. 10.01.2013 to be depicted as 10.09.2013. In order to prove this fabrication, it is necessary to send the disputed document for an expert opinion. Further, it is submitted that the only reason for dismissing the application is direction of this Court to dispose of the suit within a period of three months. In case, opportunity is not given, the judgment passed would be similar to that of an ex-parte decree. In order to give an opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case, there is a need to allow the application.

6. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Ex.A1 was produced way back in the year 2016 along with the plaint. The petitioner had knowledge about the said documents from in the year 2016 onwards. Further, Ex.A1 was marked in the year 2017. Thereafter, after the completion of arguments of respondent/plaintiff, when the matter was posted for arguments of petitioner/defendant, two interlocutory applications were filed to frame an additional issue as to whether or not the respondent is having license for lending money. Thereafter, apart from the petition under present revision and two more applications were filed to recall PW1 for cross examination on the additional issue and to reopen petitioner/defendant side evidence. Since the petition under revision is filed to s