THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1093 of 2014 Date:18.07.2014 Between:
Yalla Simhachalam . Petitioner.
AND Yalla Kalavathi . Respondents.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1093 of 2014 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against the orders dated 02-12-2013 in I.A.No.60/2013 in O.S.No.130/2011 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge at Bobbili.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this revision are as follows:-
Respondent herein filed O.S.No.130/2011 for recovery of money based on a promissory note dated 21-12-2008 said to have been executed by revision petitioner herein and that petitioner herein disputed his signature and took the plea of forgery. After framing necessary issues, Court below proceeded with trial and three witnesses are examined on behalf of plaintiff and one witness on defendant side i.e., defendant is examined as D.W.1 and at that stage, I.A.No.60/2013 is filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the disputed promissory note to an handwriting expert and the learned Junior Civil Judge, after hearing both sides and considering the allegations and counter allegations, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by which, present revision is preferred.
3. Advocate for petitioner submitted that trial Court failed to notice when the defendant vehemently disputed the signature on the promissory note, opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner to send the disputed document to an handwriting expert, which would have helped the Court in arriving at just conclusion. He further submitted that the report of expert would not only assist the Court to come to a correct conclusion, but it would help the defendant in rebutting the evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff. He submitted by allowing defendant to send the disputed document to an expert, no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff, therefore, the order of the trial Court is incorrect.
4. I have perused the impugned order dated 02-12-2013. As seen from the order, this petitioner as D.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination execution of the disputed document- promissory note and receipt of consideration. So when there is an admission on the part of D.W.1 with regard to execution of the disputed document supporting the case of plaintiff, there is no point in sending the same document to any handwriting expert. The trial Judge rightly exercised his judicial discretion and rightly disallowed the relief of sending the document to handwriting expert, therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the trial Court and he has not committed any error.
5. For these reasons, I am of the view that there are no merits in the revision and the same is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
6. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits at the admission stage.
7. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:18.07.2014 mrb