PERIKALA PETURU Vs. NELAPATI REBBAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 19-7-1995 in Small Cause Suit No. 126 of 1991 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenali, whereby the learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit which was filed on promissory note Ex. A-1 and Transfer Endorsement in favour of the plaintiff therein, dated 10-9-1981 on another pronote dated 16-10-1989 i.e., A-2. While dismissing the suit the learned Subordinate Judge has observed that the plaintiff did not prove that the consideration was paid by him to late Prakasam under Exs. A-l and A-6 i.e., promissory note date 16-10-1989 (on which endorsement Ex. A-2 was made). It is also held that though Expert Opinion is available on record, no reliance can be placed on it on the ground that the said opinion dated 12-4-94 is not exhibited and the Expert who gave opinion in also not examined.

(2.) This order is attacked by the learned counsel for the petitioner contending that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the promissory notes were executed by the deceased and the suit deserves to be allowed; that the signatures on Exs. A-l and A-6 pro-notes are true admitted signatures of late Nelapati Prakasam were sent to the Expert and the Expert has opined that they are one and the same and once the opinion of the Expert is available on record, it has to be considered as relevant piece of evidence and, therefore, the learned Subordinate Judge should have allowed the suit.

(3.) On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents contended that against dismissal of small cause suit, revision is not maintainable and right to appeal lies to the petitioner. It is also contended that in the absence of evidence of the Expert, any opinion given by him is of no evidentiary value and is inadmissible in evidence and, therefore, the Revision is liable to be dismissed.