DAMARA VENKATA MURALI KRISHNA RAO versus GURUJUPALLI SATVATHAMMA

Citation: [2008] 10 S.C.R. 933 · Decided: 14-07-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 10 S.C.R. 933 
DAMARA VENKATA MURALI KRISHNA RAO 
A 
v. 
GURUJUPALLI SATVATHAMMA 
(Civil Appeal No. 4364 of 2008) 
JULY 14, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
~ 
Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 45 - Expert opinion - Sought for 
comparison of signature of a witness- At the stage of arguments 
in a suit for recovery of money- Rejected by trial court- Rejec- c 
i' 
tion confirmed by High Court on the ground that application 
was filed with a view to protract the litigation - On appeal, held: 
In view of the facts of the case, finding of High Court not correct 
- Direction to trial court to dispose of the application. 
~ 
Respondent had filed a suit against the appellant-
D 
defendant for recovery of certain amount on the basis of 
a promissory note. Appellant took the plea that in the 
course of transactions with the son of the respondent-
plaintiff, he had discharged his liability by paying the 
amount under Exbts 8-1 to 8-12 (Receipts issued by son E 
of the plaintiff). At the time of arguments, appellant un-
-
successfully filed application for reopening the case and 
examine the son of the respondent as a witness. The son 
--+ 
of the respondent was later examined as CW-1 on the di-
rection passed by the High Court. CW-1 denied his signa-
F 
tures on Exbts 8-1 to 8-12. Appellant, thereafter filed appli-
cation u/s 45 of Evidence Act, 1872 seeking to send the 
Exbts. to Government Expert for comparison of the signa-
tures of CW-1 on the Exbts. with his admitted signatures. 
Trial court dismissed the application. High Court dismissed G 
the revision petition thereagainst, holding that the conduct 
,,._~ 
of the appellant in filing application was only with a view 
to protract the litigation. Hence the present appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
933 
H 
934 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: The factual scenario goes to show that cross 
examination was conducted on 24.7.2006 and the appli-
i.-
cation in question was filed on 1.8.2006. The application 
was filed in terms of order XIX Rule 1 CPC. The conclu-
sions of the High Court, that the sole object in making the 
B application was to protract the litigation, is not factually 
correct. The earlier Civil Revision Petition was disposed 
of on 29.3.2006. On 24.7 .2006, son of the respondent (CW 
1) was examined after being summoned. The occasion 
...... 
for making the application arose only after such exami-
/ 
c nation, on account of the statements made denying the 
' 
suggestions. The application was made immediately on 
1.8.2006. In view of the above, order of the High Court is 
set aside. Trial Court shall pass necessary orders in terms 
of the prayer made by the appellant. [Paras 4 and 5] [936-
D G & H; 937-A,B & C] 
',. 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4364 
of 2008 
From the final Judgment/Order dated 28.9.2006 of the High 
E Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Re-
vision Petition No. 4100 of 2006 
Y. Raja Gopala R~o. Y. Ramesh, Y. Vismai and B.V. Niren 
for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
---
F 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of learned 
Single judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dis.missing the. 
Civil Revision Petition filed by the appellant. Challenge in the 
G Civil Revision Petition was to the order dated 7.8.2006 passed 
.)I 
in I.A. 546 of 2006 in OS No. 9 of 2004 on the file of learned 
...... 
Senior Civil Judge at Bobbil. Learned Senior Civil Judge had 
dismissed the application filed by the defendant i.e. present 
appellant for action in terms of Section 45 of the Indian Evi-
H 
DAMARA VENKATA MURALI KRISHNA RAO 
935 
-t 
v. GURUJUPALLI SATVATHAMMA [Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J] 
dence Act, 1872 (in short the 'Act'). Prayer was to send Exh. 
A 
B1 to B12 to Government Expert for comparison of signatures 
of CW 1 therein with the admitted signatures appearing on his 
deposition and summons served on him. 
~ 
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
B 
The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner 
defendant for recovery of Rs.2,28, 150/- basing on a promis-
sory note purportedly executed by him over Rs.1,50,000/- on 
.. 
25.3.2001 and executed a suit promissory note agreeing to 
repay the same with 18% interest. The petitioner-defendant dis- c 
puted the suit promissory note. He took the plea that he had 
some transactions with the son of the plaintiff and towards th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.