IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINTH (9TH) DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.298 of 2011 Between: Vasireddy Sivalinga Prasad … Petitioner And: Inguva Seshadri Sastry … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.298 of 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.01.2011 in IA No.1032 of 2010 in OS No.303 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, wherein, the said application filed by the petitioner herein-defendant under section 45 of the Evidence Act, requesting the Court to send the disputed suit promissory note to the expert for comparison and opinion, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed suit for recovery of certain amount allegedly due by the petitioner/defendant on executing a pronote date 01.11.2004. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the petitioner borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- and executed suit pronote and failed to repay the same in spite of repeated demands. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement, denying the borrowal and also execution of the suit pronote and contending that the suit pronote is a forged and fabricated document. The trial of the suit was taken up and the plaintiff’s side evidence was closed on 22.09.2010 and after taking number of adjournments for adducing his evidence, the defendant filed application on 02.11.2010. 4. The suit was filed in the year 2007. Initially, the defendant, though entered appearance, did not file written statement and he was set ex-parte. Subsequently, on his application, the ex-parte order was set aside and then he filed his written statement on 02.05.2008. He did not however take any steps immediately thereafter to send the suit document to the hand-writing expert for comparison and opinion. It was only during the course of trial and after plaintiff’s side evidence was closed, the defendant filed present application, that too after taking number of adjournments for his side evidence. The respondent/plaintiff opposed the application, inter-alia contending that it was intended only to further protract the litigation and delay the disposal of the suit. The learned Senior Civil Judge, by impugned order dismissed the application observing that the expert evidence is only opinion evidence and the Court can as well compare the signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act and there is no necessity to send the suit pronote to the hand-writing expert. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to place reliance on a decision in ‘D. Venkatadri Naidu v. S Srinivasulu Reddy[1]’, wherein this Court held that ‘such an application though filed at belated stage, it may not be just to prevent defendant from adducing evidence’. 6. It is not a mere question of delay or the stage at which the application is filed that alone matters for considering the application, though the conduct of the party seeking the relief also is a relevant circumstance to be taken into consideration, especially because the relief sought for is one that cannot be claimed as a matter of right, but can be granted by the Court in exercise of its discretionary power. Whether such discretionary power is judicially exercised or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of a given case and the conduct of the parties thereto. Grant of relief of this nature in a given case in view of the facts and circumstances of that particular case cannot become a precedent for grant of such relief in other cases as well. When the trial Court is of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of a given case, the request to send the document to the handwriting expert is not required to be considered and the dispute can be adjudicated upon by other evidence available on record it would be certainly justified in rejecting the request irrespective of whether or not there is a delay in making such request. When the defendant filed written statement in the year 2008 itself disputing the execution of the suit pronote and if he really wanted to have an opinion of the hand writing expert in support of his plea, nothing prevented him from taking any steps in that regard immediately thereafter or within a reasonable time. His conduct in waiting till closure of the plaintiff’s evidence and filing this application without getting ready with his own evidence on number of occasions is clearly in the nature of an attempt to gather evidence and the same certainly lacks bona fides. 7. The present application is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In ‘Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai[2]’ the apex Court while dealing with the scope of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227, vis-à-vis Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 115 CPC, held as follows: “Supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied: (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. A patent error is an error which is self-evident, i.e., which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long drawn process of reasoning. Where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate Court has chosen to take one view the error cannot be called gross or patent. The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the above said two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate Court and error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred there against and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis.” It was further held as follows: “…At the end, we may sum up by saying that the power is there but the exercise is discretionary which will be governed solely by the dictates of judicial conscience enriched by judicial experience and practical wisdom of the Judge.” 8. In ‘Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Path[3]’ the apex Court reiterating the principles of exercise of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution held that ‘in exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the Tribunals or courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised’. It was further held that ‘an improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counter- productive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality.’ 9. In the present case, the trial Court dismissed the application in due exercise of its discretionary power and it is not a case where the trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction or assumed jurisdiction which it does not have or failed to exercise jurisdiction which it does have. The impugned order does not suffer from any error which is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings nor based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provision of law. It cannot also be said that with the dismissal of the application grave injustice or gross failure of justice has been occasioned. The above decision makes it clear that even in case where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate Court has chosen to take one view, the error cannot be termed gross or patent. It is obvious that the application is filed by the petitioner/defendant only to protract the trial proceedings and the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is clearly an abuse of process of law. The impugned order dismissing the application is therefore held not liable to be interfered with. 10. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 09.06.2011 bss [1] 2009(2) ALD 192 [2] 2003(5)ALD 36 (SC) = AIR 2003 SC 2044 [3] (2010)8 SCC 329