IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY THIS THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.339 of 2012
Between:
Kalla Ramulu and another . PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS And Korukonda Lakshmipathi Rao . RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.339 of 2012
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 27.12.2011 passed in I.A.No.301/2011 in O.S.No.100/2005 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari District.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
The revision petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. For the sake convenience, the parties are referred to as “plaintiff and defendants”.
The plaintiff instituted the suit basing on a promissory note to recover certain amounts from the defendants. The trial of the suit was completed. At that stage, the plaintiff filed a petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send Ex.B2 receipt allegedly passed by him for comparison of signature on it with the admitted signatures on Exs.B1, B3 to B6 by handwriting expert. The trial Court after hearing both sides allowed the said petition. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants filed the present revision petition.
The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff in the course of cross examination as PW 1 admitted the signature on Ex.B2 and therefore the trial Court erred in allowing the petition as it is absolutely unnecessary to send Ex.B2 to an handwriting expert for comparison with the admitted signatures on Exs.B1, B3 to B6. It is also contended on behalf of the defendants that the trial Court did not specifically record any finding on what point it is necessary to send Ex.B2 to an handwriting expert for determination of the issues involved in the suit.
On the other hand, the contention of the plaintiff is that as there was ambiguity in the cross examination of PW 1, with the permission of the Court, re-examination was conducted and in the re-examination PW 1 has categorically stated that Ex.B2 is a forged document and the signature on it is not his signature.
I perused the Xerox copies of the documents and the order passed by the trial Court and also the deposition of PW 1. In the cross examination, the plaintiff as PW 1 admitted his signatures on Exs.B1, B3 to B6 and also on Ex.B2. However, as already stated, the re- examination was conducted and in the re-examination the plaintiff specifically denied the signature on Ex.B2. To ascertain what the witness actually stated, the entire deposition has to be taken into consideration, but not the stray words or sentences in some part of the deposition. From the entire deposition of PW 1 it is clear that the plaintiff did not admit the signature on Ex.B2 which was ultimately clarified in re-examination by stating that the signature on Exs.B1, B3 to B6 are his signatures and the signature on Ex.B2 is not his signature. The trial Court after going into the entire material available on record arrived at the conclusion that Ex.B2 receipt has to be sent for comparison and opinion of the handwriting expert along with the admitted signatures on Exs.B1, B3 to B6.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion and allowed the petition, which does not require any interference by this Court. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.
R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 05.12.2014 Dsr