ORDER
P.S. Narayana, J.
1. These two Civil Revision Petitions arise out of a common order made by Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District dated 16-4-1999 decreeing S.C.No.103/95 and dismissing the counter claim filed by the 1st defendant who is the 1st petitioner in the C.R. Ps. The defendants 1 and 2 are the Revision Petitioners and the 1st respondent is the plaintiff. 2. For the purpose of convenience the parties will be referred to as plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2.
3. The plaintiff is a chit fund Company and had filed S.C.No.103/95 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District against defendants 1 to 4 for recovery of a sum of Rs.9354-45 and it is the case of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant was a subscriber in Rs.15,000/- chit group payable in thirty monthly instalments of Rs.500/- each and the 1st defendant was the successful bidder in the auctioin held on 20-2-1994 and was paid a sum of Rs.10,500/- on furnishing defendants 2 to 4 as guarantors and the 2nd defendant is none other than the husband of the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant had paid only four instalments after the auction and she had committed default in payment of instalments from July 1994 and hence the suit for recovery of the amount. Defendants 1 and 2 had filed a written statement and also counter claim and these defendants contended that the 1st defendant joined as a subscriber in the plaintiff company and she had participated in the auction conducted on 20-2-1994 and became a successful bidder and the plaintiff obtained her signatures on various bonds and wanted the 1st defendant to bring three sureties to complete the formalities and directed her to come after 4 or 5 days for verification of the sureties and the said chit amount was not paid to her and she came to know that the said amount was given to S. Venkatachary, through cheque and she had denied having withdrawn Rs.9290/- through cheque bearing No.72434 and Rs.460/- through receipt No.24529 and that she stopped payment in protest since she had not received the prize amount even after the demand and the 1st defendant had filed a counter claim for Rs.9750/- on the ground that the said amount was not paid to her. The court below after considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and D.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.A-1 to A-12, Ex.B-1, Ex.X-1, Exs.C-1 to C-5 had arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree and the defendants are not entitled to any counter claim and the claim filed by the 1st defendant was accordingly dismissed. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, these two Civil Revision Petitions are filed by defendants 1 and 2.
4. Sri Mirza Nisar Ahmed Baig, the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioners i.e., defendants 1 and 2 had made elaborate submissions pointing out how the court below had gone wrong in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff and in dismissing the counter claim. The learned counsel also had pointed out that PW-3, the Bank Manager, had deposed that the 1st defendant did not sign in his presence and hence the alleged payment made to the 1st defendant cannot be believed at all. It was also pointed out that though the receipt of amount was specifically denied, no separate issue was framed in this regard. The learned counsel also had pointed out that when the signatures do not tally, the defence of the defendants could have been believed by the court below. The learned counsel had strongly relied on the evidence of DW-3 and also Exs.C-1 to C-5 and Ex.X-1 and had contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case the opinion of the expert is not only admissible and it is also relevant in the light of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and hence the defence of non-passing of consideration should have been believed by the court below instead of decreeing the suit. The learned counsel also had pointed out that the court below had not even taken pains to compare the signatures for itself as contemplated by Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the absence of such comparison by the Court, the court below should have relied upon the clear evidence of DWs.1 and 2, well supported by the evidence of DW-3 to substantiate the defence of the defendants. The learned counsel also had taken me in detail through the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, D.Ws.1 to 3 and also Exs.A-1 to A-12, Ex.B-1, Ex.X-1 and Exs.C-1 to C-5.
5. Sri Suresh, the learned counsel representing the plaintiff-1st respondent had submitted that the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 12 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Small Causes Courts Act 1330 Fasli, for short hereinafter called “the Act”, is very limited. It may be wider when compared to Section 115 C.P.C., but definitely it cannot be equated with the appellate powers. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to the clear findings recorded by the court below at paragraph-7 of the Judgment and had submitted that inasmuch as the expert evidence is only the opinion evidence, such opinion evidence always is not binding on the Court and the Court can always arrive at an independent conclusion on the material available on record and hence absolutely there is no legal infirmity warranting any interference under Section 12 of the Act. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to the portions of depositions of P.Ws.1, 2, and 3 and also Exs.A-1 to A-12 and had submitted that the court below had arrived at the correct conclusion in this regard and hence these Civil Revision Petitions are liable to be dismissed.
6. Having heard both the counsel, it may be appropriate to look into Section 12 of the Act for better appreciation of the case. Section 12 of the said Act reads:
“The High Court may call for and inspect any file of a court of small causes, and pass such order thereon as it thinks fit”.
7. No doubt, by the wording of Section 12 of the Act, it can be said that the revisional powers of the High Court under the said Act are wide when compared to the revisional powers under Section 115 of C.P.C., but at any rate they cannot be equated with the appellate powers. In this case, P.Ws.1 to 3 and D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-12 and Ex.B-1, Ex.X-1 and Exs.C-1 to C-5 were marked. The contention of the Revision Petitioners is that the 1st Revision Petitioner participated in the auction conducted on 20-2-1994, but she was not paid the amount by the plaintiff company and the payment alleged by the plaintiff by way of cheque dated 27-3-1994 was not received by her and hence she had stopped payment of the balance instalments and on the contrary the plaintiff-chit fund Company contended that the 1st defendant had paid all the instalments upto 20-2-1994 and she had received the amount under the cheque which she got altered to bearer cheque and taking advantage of the same, now she is denying the payment and even after the auction also she paid four or five instalments and that itself shows that the amount was received under Ex.X-1 cheque. After appreciation of the evidence, the court below had given a specific finding that the 1st defendant had received the payment after she had participated in the auction. In fact, the 1st defendant had admitted her signatures on the chit agreement, guarantee agreement, pronote and cash voucher, but she denied her signature on the cheque, which is marked as Ex.X-1. DW-3 was appointed as an expert who had taken the signatures of the 1st defendant on the chit documents, her written statement and other admitted signatures and compared those signatures with the other signatures found on the back of Ex.X-1, marked as Exs.Q-1 to Q-3 and the other admitted signatures on the alleged document and the pleadings, marked as Exs.A-1 to A-12 and it is the opinion of DW-3 that under Exs.C-1 and C-2 that the signatures found on the reverse of Ex.X-1 cheque are not that of the 1st. Here itself is relevant to note that the evidence of the expert is only opinion evidence. Since the expert evidence is only opinion evidence, if other convincing evidence is available, then the Court can definitely rely upon such evidence. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is convincing and there is elaborate discussion on several aspects by the Court below. In fact, it was observed by the Court below as follows:-
“…….PW3 is Bank Manager, and he deposed that the amount was paid to S. Rajeshwari on identification by the plaintiff on 5-4-94 under Ex.X-1 cheque. Though this witness deposed that D1 did not sign in his presence, and has to verify as to whether Ex.x-1 cheque was encashed by D1 or not. D1 in her evidence had categorically denied that she has not received any amount. She denied her signature on Ex.A1 to A4. D2 who is no other than the husband of D1 deposed that the signature shown to him in Ex.A4 is that of his wife. He admitted his signature on Ex.A2 & A3. Ex.A4 is the cash voucher which is containing the signature of the D1 showing the receipt of amount under cheque No: 0072 434 for Rs.9.290/-. Defendant No:2 who is her husband had categorically admitted this signature to be of his wife D1. D1 affixed her thumb impression before this court in her deposition though she put her signature in the written statement filed by her and though she is capable of writing her name. The statement made by her before this court that she is illiterate and affixing of her thumb impression, shows that a false statement was made by her. D2 is working in BHEL, Ramachandrapuram and he admitted categorically that Ex.A1 cash voucher is signed by his wife defendant No.1. The very fact that D1 had denied her signature and affixed thumb impression without putting her signature on the deposition before this court shows that she is in the habit of changing her signatures. It is the case of D1 that she has not received any amount under the Ex.X-1 cheque. If she has not received the amount under the cheque there was no necessity for her to sign on the reverse of the cheque Ex.X-1. The D1 had asked for conversion of Account payee cheque to a bearer cheque and drawn the amount and disputed the same now. If D1 was not really no need of money and she did not receive money she would not have paid all the balance instalments from July, 1993 to February, 1994 at a time and participated in the auction. The very fact that she participated in the auction on 20-2-94 by paying all the previous dues shows that she was interested to get the amount immediately, if that is taking into consideration she will not keep quiet without receiving the amount on furnishing the guarantors. Further the D1 had paid 4 instalments subsequent to the auction for the month of March, 1994 to June, 1994. Unless she receives the amount we cannot expect her to go on depositing the amount for a period of 4 months. Further D1 did not issue any notice for not receiving the amount till a suit is filed against her and she filed the counter claim into the court. The said counter claim was filed by her on 17-8-96. The suit is filed on 26-6-95. If D1 did not receive any amount and was required to stop payment as contended by her after June, 1994 she would have atleast asked for refund of amount already paid by her between June, 94 and August, 96 when she made the counter claim in the court for the first time. In the normal courts of events we cannot expect D1 to be silent having paid about 13 to 14 instalments and having furnished the guarantors including her husband for getting the amount from the plaintiff chit fund company. The very fact that she had participated in the auction on 20-2-94 by paying off all the previous dues itself suggests that D1 was urgently in need of money and she paid the previous dues only in order to be a successful bidder in the auction and in order to get the qualification for participating in the auction, the dues have been paid by her”.
8. In fact, the Court below had discussed in detail the conduct of the 1st defendant and had disbelieved her version and had discarded the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3 in this regard. A categorical finding was given that the 1st defendant is in the habit of changing her signatures and hence the report of the expert, DW-3, under Exs.C-1 and C-2, cannot be relied upon. Further, the receipt of the amount by the 1st defendant has been spoken to by PW-3, the Bank Manager. Thus, the evidence on record clearly goes to show that the defence set up by the Revision Petitioners is not a bonafide defence and the claim of the plaintiff-Company was proved. In GUNTAKA HUSSENAIAH Vs. BUSETTI YERRAIAH 1, it was held that the evidence of an expert is only a piece of evidence to be appraised and considered by the Judge of fact along with other pieces of evidence and which is main evidence and which is corroborative one depends on the facts of each case. Further, in ISHWARI PRASAD MISRA Vs. MOHAMMED ISA 2, it was observed by the apex Court that the evidence given by experts of hand-writing can never be conclusive because it is after all opinion evidence. Thus, in the facts and circumstances since the evidence of DW-3 is only opinion evidence, I am not inclined to give much weight in the light of the several facts and circumstances, especially the evidence of PW-3 in this regard and apart from it in view of the limitations imposed on the revisional powers of this court under Section 12 of the Act, I do not think that this is a matter warranting interference while exercising the revisional powers.
9. Hence, the for foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in both the Civil Revision Petitions and they are accordingly dismissed. No costs.