LAWS(APH)-2023-3-97

VELINENI VEERAIAH Vs. NALLABOTHULA MOHAN KUMAR DHARMA

Decided On March 20, 2023
Velineni Veeraiah Appellant
V/S
Nallabothula Mohan Kumar Dharma Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the 1st petitioner/defendant under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the orders passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chirala in I.A.No.134 of 2014 in O.S.No.74 of 2009 dtd. 12/8/2014 where in and whereby learned trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner No.1 under Sec. 45 of Indian Evidence Act and refused to send suit promissory note to Hand writing expert Mr.Ashok Kashyap for comparison of age of ink.

(2.) The case of petitioner No.1/Defendant No.1 before the Trial Court in brief is that respondent has filed suit against him basing on promissory note. He submits that respondent has examined PWs 1 and 2 and his evidence was closed and thereafter suit was coming for his side evidence. As he pleaded in his written statement that PW2 was running Finance Company at Chirala and one Katta Suri Babu, who is working as IV-Class employee in V.S.R and Y.R.N.College approached Finance Company for a loan to meet publication expenses of the book, for which PW2 insisted the said Suri Babu to get third party surety and thereafter at the request of said Suri Babu he stood as surety and PW2 advanced Rs.40,000.00 to Suri Babu, which transaction took place in the year 1995, at that time PW2 obtained two blank promissory notes, one from Mr.K.Suri Babu and another from him and that PW2 might have created forged recitals of the promissory note taking advantage of availability of blank promissory notes signed by him.

(3.) It is also the contention of the petitioner that he filed I.A.No.633 of 2013 to send the suit promissory note to A.P.Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad to ascertain the age of ink in signature and remaining portion of the promissory note which petition was allowed and thereafter the suit promissory note was sent to A.P.Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad for opinion but the same was returned without expressing any opinion stating that they are unable to give an opinion. Hence, petitioner filed petition to send promissory note to Private Expert at Delhi.