1 RRR, J C.R.P.No.737 of 2025 APHC010140842025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 737 of 2025 Between: Kapusetty Kumari ...PETITIONER AND NadipalliGoyamma and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T S B V RAMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO The Court made the following Order: The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.152 of 2022 before the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anakapalle for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note, dated 20.05.2019. The petitioner herein, who is the 1st defendant in the suit, resisted the claim of the 1st respondent on the ground that the promissory note had been fabricated on account of certain family disputes between the defendants and one Pala Gowri Santhoshi. The 2 RRR, J C.R.P.No.737 of 2025 petitioner and the other defendants took the specific stand that the suit promissory note is fabricated document. 2. Subsequently, the petitioner herein moved I.A.No.927 of 2022 for comparison of the thumb mark of the 1st defendant with the thumb mark that can be taken in Court. This application was dismissed by the trial Court by an order dated 10.01.2025. The trial Court took the view that there are no bona fides on the part of the petitioner in as much as the petitioner was seeking comparison of her thumb impressions without seeking comparison of the thumb impressions of other defendants. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present civil revision petition. 4. Heard Sri M. Hari Krishna appearing on behalf of Sri T.S.B.V. Rama Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. 5. The view of the trial Court, that there is lack of bona fides on the part of the petitioner, merely because she asked only for comparison of her thumb impression without asking for comparison of thumb impressions of other defendants, cannot be accepted. The petitioner can only seek comparison of her thumb impression. Any comparison of other thumb impressions would have to be done only on the basis of the other defendants also seeking such a relief. 3 RRR, J C.R.P.No.737 of 2025 6. In any event, the fact remains that the promissory note produced by the contesting respondents contains two thumb impressions and signatures of all the three defendants in the suit. The first thumb impression is said to be relating to the petitioner herein. In such circumstances, comparison of the thumb impression available in the promissory note would set at rest any future disputes as to whether the promissory note has been signed by thepetitioner apart from affixing her thumb impression. 7. In the circumstances, it would only be appropriate to allow this revision petition setting aside the order of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anakapalle, dated 10.01.2025, with a direction that the thumb impression of the petitioner be taken in open Court and the same be sent along with the Promissory note, dated 20.05.2019, to an appropriate expert to be chosen by the trial Court, for comparison. 8. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Js. 4 RRR, J C.R.P.No.737 of 2025 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO C.R.P.No.737 of 2025 18th July, 2025 Js.