NAMINENI AUDI SESHAIAH Vs. NUMBURU MOHAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the defendant in OS.No.228 of 2014 on the file of learned V Additional District Judge, Nellore. It is a suit based on 4 pro-notes said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff viz., 2 pronotes dated 04.02.2012 for Rs.10,00,000/- each and another pro-note of Rs.10,00,000/- on 09.03.2012 and another pronote of Rs.5,00,000/- on 13.08.2012 and that despite demands having failed to pay having issued cheque bearing No.374451 dated 17.06.2014 of Rs.50,00,000/- towards so called part payment out of it and the cheque later returned dishonoured and thereby entitled to the suit amount claimed of total Rs.58,00,332/- with interest on Rs.35,00,000/- from date of suit and for costs etc., is the sum and substance with supporting averments.

(2.) The defendant contested by filing written statement by denying the said averments with the say that the defendant never had any such necessity to borrow such huge amounts on the alleged dates. It was in relation to the venture of his son at Bangalore, the plaintiff's son had some disputes and the plaintiff, his son and one Aluru Srinivas Reddy colluded together and created and fabricated the documents referred and relied in the plaint of the present suit and in another suit filed against the defendant's son. The defendant is an agriculturalist and lives by its income and entitled to the benefit of Act No.4/38 otherwise and there is no cause of action for the suit hence to dismiss. Leave about other contentions, the main contention of defendant is those are fabricated documents to say he never admitted execution of pro-notes and signed or received of amounts thereunder and also giving of cheque in question.

(3.) In the factual scenario I.A.No.122 of 2018 filed by the defendant before the trial Court under Section 94(e), 151 CPC and Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send the disputed pronote to an expert to ascertain the age of the ink in the signatures of the petitioner and the recitals in the pro-notes by saying suit claim based on the so called pro-notes are fabricated documents and by misusing the transactions between the plaintiff's son Venkateswara Rao in fabricating the suit pro-notes and thereby those are to be sent to expert to determine the age of the ink found in the signatures of him and of the alleged attestors and the recitals in the body of the pro-notes.