APHC010123362016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1988/2016 Between: 1. N JAYALAKSHMI, GUNTUR, W/O. KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. 5-54-143, VENKATA GANAPATHI RESIDENCY, 4TH FLOOR, 6/14 BRODIPET, GUNTUR. ...PETITIONER AND 1. CH SIVA RAMA KRISHNA VJA KRISHNA DIST, S/o late Ramakrishnaiah, Aged about 42 years, R/o Srinivasanagar Bank Colony, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toaggrieved by the order dt.05.01.2016 in IA NO.801 of 2015 in OS NO.74 of 2008 on the file of the XIII Addl. and Sessions Judge at Vijayawada IA NO: 1 OF 2016(CRPMP 2550 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay of all further proceedings in OS No. 74 OF 2008 on the file of the XIII Addl. District and Sessions judge at Vijayawada, pending disposal of the civil revision petition and pass 2 IA NO: 4 OF 2016(CRPMP 11282 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim order dated 17.06.2016 in CRP.No. 1988 of 2016, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASULU P Counsel for the Respondent: 1. 3 The Court made the following Order: Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arrayed as defendant in O.S.No.74 of 2008 on the file of XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. It is submitted that the suit was filed for recovery of money based on the alleged promissory note executed by the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, in the written statement had taken a specific stand that the promissory note was never executed in favour of the complainant and the written statement was filed on 24.09.2008. Subsequently, the petitioner filed I.A.No.801 of 2015, seeking to send the promissory note for forensic department at Nasik for comparison with the defendant signatures on Vakalat, written statement and to get the opinion of handwriting expert in the interest of justice. 3. The learned Judge had dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner did not shown any interest in filing the said petition earlier and filed the petition soon after filing the written statement. It was also observed that the petition is filed at a belated stage, after the completion of evidence of the complainant. 4. This Court, while admitting the Civil Revision Petition, granted stay of all further proceedings in the suit vide order dated 17.06.2016. Though notice is served on the respondent, there is no representation. As such, this Court has to deem it that the respondent is not interested in pursuing the Civil 4 Revision Petition. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is being decided on merits. 5. The order of the learned Judge dismissing the petition filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act deserved to be set aside for the following reason: 1) The petitioner has taken a plea of disputing the signature on the promissory note as early as 24.09.2008 in the written statement. The petition was filed after the completion of evidence of the complainant in the year 2015. As such, the dismissal of the petition on the ground that the petitioner filed the I.A. at a belated stage cannot sustain the scrutiny of law and logic. That apart, there was a stay of all further proceedings in the suit from 17.06.2016. In such circumstances, no purpose would be served by keeping the suit pending any further. 6. On these grounds, this Court is inclined to allow the Civil Revision Petition, setting aside the order passed in I.A.No.801 of 2015 in O.S.No.74 of 2008 on the file of XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. The learned Judge is further directed to send the promissory note, along with the defendant signatures on Vakalat, written statement, to the Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, M.G. Road, Vijayawada, for expert opinion to compare the signatures on the disputed promissory note with the admitted signatures on vakalat, written statement, and proceed further to 5 dispose the suit within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order passed in I.A.No.801 of 2015 in O.S.No.74 of 2008 on the file of XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, is hereby set aside. No costs. 8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date : 16.07.2025 BMS