1 APHC010162882025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] THURSDAY,THE FOUARTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.841/2025 Between: 1. GUGGILAPU SURYA NARAYANA, S/O. LATE RASAYYA, AGED.65 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO.20-147/2, DUGGAVANIPALEM, NEAR PENDURTHY RAILWAY STATION, PENDURTHY, VISHAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SUREDDY KANAKA DURGA VENU, W/O. S. PYDAM NAIDU, AGED 44 YEARS R/O. D.N0.127/A, JDUGULLU, NEAR GANDIVARI HOUSES, SABBAVARAM, MANDALAM VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT NOW ANAKAPALLE 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 to allow the above CRP by setting aside the orders passed in I.A. No.799 of 2024 in O.S. No.334 of 2019 dated 4-3-2025 on the file of learned VII Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Vishakhapatnam) in the interest of justice. I.A. No.1 OF 2025 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 dispense with filing of certified copy of the order dt 4-3-2025 in lA No 799 of 2 2024 in O.S. No.334 of 2019 pending on the file of learned VII Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Vishakhapatnam, in the interest of justice. I.A. No.2 OF 2025 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No.334 of 2019 pending on the file of learned VII Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division) Vishakhapatnam, pending disposal of the above C.R.P. in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Sri Ch. SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following Order: The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.334 of 2019 before the VII Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam, for recovery of money, based on promissory notes. The petitioner disputed the said contention of the respondent and pleaded, in his written statement, that the signature of the petitioner on the promissory notes were forged. In the course of the trial, the counsel for the petitioner had made a suggestion to the respondent, in the following manner: “It is not true to suggest that in the year 2013 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/- from one Financier Prasad and issued two blank signed promissory notes to him and in the year 2018 the Defendant’s daughter gave me those two promissory notes since disputes have been cropped up in between her and her father and by using those two promissory notes, I have filed this case in the year 2019”. 3 2. Thereafter, the petitioner moved I.A.No.799 of 2024 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, for sending the promissory notes said to have been signed by the petitioner, for comparison with contemporaneous admitted signatures. 3. The trial Court dismissed the application, by an order dated 04.03.2025, on the ground that the aforesaid suggestion makes it clear that the petitioner had admitted the signatures on the two promissory notes which had already been marked as Exs.A1 and A2. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Civil Revision Petition. 5. Sri Ch. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner had taken an unequivocal stand, in his written statement, that the signatures on Exs.A1 and A2 do not belong to him and have been fabricated/forged. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in such a situation a stray suggestion made in the course of cross examination cannot be treated as an admission in the face of the clear denial of signatures in the written statement. He would suggest that in such circumstances, the trial Court could not have dismissed his application for comparison of signatures. 6. The purpose of suggestions, in cross examination, is that the party making suggestions sets out the case of such a party to the witness/opposite party. This would mean that the suggestion made by the counsel for the party, is essentially setting out the case of the said party. 4 7. In the present case, the suggestion made by the counsel of the petitioner, is a very specific suggestion containing two or three specific statements namely, the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- in the year 2013 from one financier called Prasad; the petitioner had issued two blank signed promissory notes to him for such purpose; the daughter of the petitioner in the year 2018, had handed over these two blank signed promissory notes to the respondent, as there were differences between the petitioner and his daughter. In view of such a detailed and specific suggestion, it would have to be held that this is the case that the petitioner was seeking to make out in the case. 8. In that view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the trial Court and accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The aforesaid observations have been made for the purpose of disposal of the Civil Revision Petition and the same may not influence the trial Court while disposing of the suit. 9. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J RJS 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 841/2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) 04.09.2025 RJS