Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Telangana
  4. /
  5. 2014
  6. /
  7. January

Mohammad Sarwar @ Hiyabani vs Vadlakonda Parashram

High Court Of Telangana|07 November, 2014
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3562 OF 2014 DATE: 07.11.2014 Between :
Mohammad Sarwar @ Hiyabani S/o. Mohd.Moulana, Aged 40 years, Occu: Business, R/o. 3-5-117, Asmathpura, Karimnagar.
… Petitioner/petitioner/ defendant And Vadlakonda Parashram, S/o.Venkataiah, Aged 62 years, r/o.10-4-202/A, Vavilalapally, Karimnagar.
… Respondent/respondent/ plaintiff This Court made the following:
ORDER:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3562 OF 2014 Respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of money basing on a promissory note. The revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The plea of the defendant is that he never executed the promissory note and it is a created one. The defendant contended that the signature of the plaintiff on the plaint and legal notice caused by him is not tallied and, therefore, the signature of the plaintiff should be obtained in the open Court and the same should be sent for Expert opinion. To that extent, petitioner herein filed I.A.No.82 of 2014 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code.
2. The trial Court held that though the revision petitioner claimed that there is a difference in signatures of the plaintiff on the plaint and legal notice, the legal notice did not contain any signature. Trial Court further held that the question of sending the said signature to the Expert does not arise at the instance of a third person when the plaintiff does not dispute his signature on the plaint. The trial Court also noticed that the petitioner is not asking for referring the promissory note for expert opinion regarding signature on the promissory note which is relied on by the plaintiff in support of his claim. Having held thus, I.A.No.82 of 2014 was dismissed. There is no illegality or irregularity in dismissing I.A.No.82 of 2014 by the trial Court warranting interference by this Court.
3. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date:07.11.2014 kkm HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3562 OF 2014 Date: 07.11.2014 kkm
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Mohammad Sarwar @ Hiyabani vs Vadlakonda Parashram

Court

High Court Of Telangana

JudgmentDate
07 November, 2014
Judges
  • P Naveen Rao Civil