RYTU DEPOT DRAKSHARAMA Vs. RAJYALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These civil revision petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, have been filed by the petitioners questioning the orders dated 18.12.2012, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, in IA No. 1184 of 2012 and IA No. 1228 of 2012 respectively, in OS No. 64 of 2008. The respondents filed the above suit for recovery of money based on certain transactions against the petitioners, who are defendants in the suit. It is their case that one Cheekatla Ramakrishna, who is related to the petitioners, has signed on several invoices and the same were filed into the Court. With reference to the said invoices containing the signatures of Ramakrishna, the case of the petitioners is that the same are forged one. When the petitioners denied the signature of Cheekatla Ramakrishna on the said invoices by pleading forgery, the respondents have filed the present applications i.e., IA No. 1184 of 2012 seeking to send the disputed signature of said Ramakrishna on Ex. A163, for expert opinion, for comparison of the same with his admitted signatures, and IA No. 1228 of 2012 to summon such Ramakrishna as their witness or witness of the Court in respect of various invoices. Both the applications were allowed by the trial Court vide impugned orders dated 18.12.2012. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred these revisions.

(2.) Heard Sri K. Chidambaram, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Sri J. Sreenivasa Rao, learned Counsel for the respondents, and perused the material available on record.

(3.) It is submitted by Sri K. Chidambaram, learned Counsel for the petitioners, that the document under Ex. A163 is a carbon copy, as such, the trial Court erred in allowing the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act directing to send the disputed signature of Cheekatla Ramakrishna on the said document, for expert opinion, for comparison with the admitted signatures. It is further submitted that summoning of a third party as a Court witness can be at the discretion of the Court, but not on the application filed by the respondents.