UPPU JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI Vs. J VENKATESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil revision petition No. 3549/1992 is directed against the order of the learned Second Additional District Munsif, Vijayawada in I.A. No. 613 of 1992 in O.S. No. 1263 of 1987 allowing the application of the defendant for sending the suit promissory note to a private expert for determining the age of the ink used by the attestor and the scribe in the suit promissory note.

(2.) Although no reasons are given in the order impugned in this revision, evidently the same reasons given by the learned District Munsif on an identical application filed earlier LA. No. 1452 of 1991 which was allowed on 24-1-1992 weighed with him in allowing the present application. In the circumstances, it is necessary to refer to the earlier application for the purpose of ascertaining the reasons.

(3.) The suit itself was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff on the strength of a promissory note, ex.A1 dated 11-6-1983 alleged to have been executed by the defendant for Rs. 16,300.00. The defendant in his written statement admitted the execution, but plead- ed that the suit promissory note was not supported by consideration; because of the business transactions between the plaintiffs and the defendant's families, the promissory note came to be executed. It was also further pleaded that the execution of the suit promissory note was in Burrepalem village in Guntur district and therefore, the Court of District Munsif at Vijayawada lacks territorial jurisdiction to have seisin of the matter. The further allegation made was that the attestation was done not at the time of execution, but it was done subsequently in order to confer jurisdiction on the District Munsifs Court at Vijayawada. After the evidence of both sides was over, when the suit was posted for arguments, two interlocutory applications were filed on behalf of the defendant, to recall P.Ws. 2 and 3 -- the attestors -- for further cross-examination. P.W. 2 is no other than the husband of the plaintiff and P.W. 3 is a stranger. The plaintiff figured as P.W. 1. Although both the applications were opposed by the plaintiff, they were allowed by the learned District Munsif. Subsequently as P.W. 2 did not attend the Court for cross-examination, his evidence was directed to be eschewed from consideration. P.W. 3 was further cross-examined pursuant to the order made in the interlocutory application.