THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7807 of 2011 Dated 25th March, 2011 Between: M.N.Pawan Kumar and others …Petitioners And M/s. HI-Tech Mutually Aided Cooperative Tariff Society Limited, Hyderabad and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Moosa Ahmed Counsel for respondents: Government Pleader for Cooperation The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the order dated 15.02.2011 in I.A.No.456 of 2010 in O.P.No.40 of 2008 on the file of respondent No.2 – Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’). I have heard Sri Moosa Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. Petitioner No.2 allegedly borrowed certain amount from respondent No.1, to which other petitioners stood as guarantors, and as petitioner No.2 failed to repay the loan amount, respondent No.1 filed O.P.No.40 of 2008 for recovery of the loan amount from the petitioners. More than two years after the filing of the O.P. and the petitioners filing counter-affidavit therein, they have filed I.A.No.456 of 2010 in the O.P. for sending Ex.A-20 document along with specimen signatures of petitioner No.1 to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Nampally, Hyderabad for comparing the signature on Ex.A-20 with the specimen signatures of petitioner No.1. This petition having been dismissed by the impugned order, the present writ petition is filed. One of the reasons assigned by the Tribunal for dismissing the I.A. filed by the petitioners is that not only the petitioners have denied the genuineness of Ex.A-20 document but also that they have specifically pleaded in the counter-affidavit before the Tribunal that the signatures of petitioner No.1 were taken on blank papers. On this premise, the Tribunal dismissed the I.A. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed before this Court the counter-affidavit filed in the O.P. In para 11 of the counter-affidavit, it is averred as under: “As per the accounts the Respondent No.1 is only liable to pay around Rs.80,000/- Respondents also denies the rate of interest as 26% p.a. the petitioners society initially obtained signatures on blank papers and later used them to as per their will and wish. On so called agreements documents are also taken blank signature of the parties and later started misappropriating. The letters dt.26.05.2004 and 27.05.2004 have not been executed by Respondent No.1” From the above reproduced averments, it is clear that the petitioners, far from raising the plea of forgery, have in fact admitted that their signatures on blank papers were obtained and were allegedly misused by respondent No.1. It is thus clear that the plea raised in I.A.No.456 of 2010 is wholly inconsistent with the stand taken by the petitioners in their defence in the O.P. In the face of the petitioners’ own admission that they have subscribed their signatures on blank papers, they cannot be permitted to resile from the said stand and seek sending of signatures contained in Ex.A-20 for expert’s opinion. Therefore, I do not find any error in the order passed by the Tribunal. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.9709 of 2011 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25th March, 2011 GHN