IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1853 of 2011 Between: Pinninti Seshagiri Rao ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Shriram Chits Private Limited, Ichapuram Branch rep. by its Senior Divisional Manager, G. Satyanarayana .....RESPONDENT(S) ORDER: This revision has been filed against the order dated 17-02-2011 passed in I.A.No.78 of 2010 in O.S.No.33 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Ichapuram. 2. The petitioner herein is the defendant and respondent herein is the plaintiff in the above suit filed before the lower Court and the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the lower Court for the sake of convenience. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The plaintiff filed O.S.No.33 of 2006 for recovery of suit mortgage debt of Rs.98,896/-. The defendant filed a written statement denying the plaint averments. The defendant has also claimed Rs.23,470/- in his counter claim. The plaintiff filed a rejoinder disputing the same. When PW-1 was examined on behalf of the plaintiff he seems to have admitted that the signatures on the rejoinder and the signatures on the plaint and Vakalath are that of one G. Satyanarayana. The main grievance of the defendant is that the signatures on rejoinder and the signatures on Vakalath and plaint are not tallying and there is a lot of variance between those signatures. In the above circumstances, the defendant filed I.A.No.78 of 2010 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon G. Satyanarayana for the purpose of obtaining signatures in the open Court and for sending the same to the handwriting expert for comparison of his signatures with the disputed signatures on the rejoinder to the Government handwriting expert. The plaintiff filed a counter and opposed the petition. The lower Court observing that the said G. Satyanarayana is not a party to the suit and he was not examined as a witness, therefore, he cannot be summoned for the purpose of obtaining his signature in the open Court and that the rejoinder was filed on 01-09-2006 and the present application is filed on 05-07-2010 and there is inordinate delay in filing the application and therefore, there are no merits in the petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the lower Court ought to have allowed the application filed by the petitioner and ought to have considered that the signatures of the respondent on rejoinder, Vakalath and plaint are totally different and that no prejudice will be caused to the respondent/plaintiff in summoning said G. Satyanarayana for obtaining his signatures in public Court. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the lower Court has rightly considered his application as G. Satyanarayana is not a party to the suit. 6. The only point that arises for consideration is : Whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside? 7. POINT: Admittedly, the rejoinder was filed on 01-09-2006 and the impugned application filed on 05-07-2011 i.e., nearly after four years and more over, G. Satyanarayana was not examined before the lower Court. In view of inordinate delay in approaching the Court, I do not see any reason to interfere with the reasoned order of the lower Court. 8. In view of the above facts, I am of the opinion that there are no merits in the revision and hence, it is liable to be dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to raise this issue at the time of arguing the suit and cross-objections. 9. Subject to the above observation, the revision is dismissed. _________________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J June 24, 2011 Pn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1853 of 2011 June 24, 2011