APHC010646372025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Wednesday, the Twenty ninth day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 3427 of 2025 Between: P. Chandra Kalavathi ...Petitioner and Peram Vasudeva Reddy and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: 1. K. Narsi Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Nil Civil Revision Petition No: 3438 of 2025 Between: P. Chandra Kalavathi ...Petitioner and Vasantham Siva Rami Reddy and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: 1. K. Narsi Reddy 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.3427 of 2025 & batch Counsel for the respondents: Nil Civil Revision Petition Nos: 3448, 3449 and 3535 of 2025 Between: P. Chandra Kalavathi ...Petitioner and Peram Vasudeva Reddy and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: 1. K. Narsi Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Nil The Court made the following: 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.3427 of 2025 & batch COMMON ORDER: C.R.P. No. 3427 of 2025 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 27.06.2025 dismissing I.A. No. 165 of 2022 in O.S. No. 134 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tadipatri, filed by the defendant No.3 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, r/w. Section 151 of C.P.C. to send the disputed promissory notes, a copy of registered will dated 06.06.2003 and the hand writings of M. Chenna Kesava Reddy obtained in open Court to hand writing expert for its examination. 2. C.R.P. No. 3438 of 2025 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 27.06.2025 dismissing I.A. No. 453 of 2021 in O.S. No. 100 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tadipatri, filed by the defendant No.3 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, r/w. Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking the similar relief as in I.A. No. 165 of 2020 in O.S. No. 134 of 2017. 3. C.R.P. Nos. 3448, 3449 and 3535 of 2025 are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the common order dated 27.06.2025 dismissing I.A. Nos. 457, 459 and 460 of 2021 in O.S. No. 99 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tadipatri, all filed by the defendant No.3. 4. I.A. No. 457 of 2017 is filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the disputed promissory note / Ex.A1, a copy of registered will No. 4/2003, dated 06.06.2003, and the hand writing of M. Chenna Kesava Reddy obtained in open Court to a hand writing expert for examination of the signature. I.A. No. 459 of 2021 is filed under Order VIII, Rule 1A (3) r/w 151 C.P.C. to receive a copy of the 4 BSB, J C.R.P.No.3427 of 2025 & batch registered will No. 4/2003, dated 06.06.2003. I.A. No. 460 of 2021 is filed under Order XVIII, Rule 17 r/w. 151 C.P.C. to recall D.W.1 to adduce evidence and mark the document. 5. The case of the petitioner is, briefly, as follows: a. The revision petitioner herein is the defendant No.3 in O.S. Nos. 99, 100 and 134 of 2017. The three suits were filed for recovery of the amount on promissory notes dated 06.10.2014, 14.07.2014 and 10.08.2014, each for Rs.1,00,000/-, allegedly executed by Moolinti Nagi Reddy. As he died on 22.10.2016, the suits were filed against his legal heirs viz., the defendants Nos.1 to 3. The defendant No.1 is the wife of Late Moolinti Nagi Reddy, the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are his son and daughter. b. The plaintiff in O.S. Nos. 99 and 134 of 2017 is P. Vasudeva Reddy. The plaintiff in O.S. No.100 of 2017 is V. Siva Rami Reddy. c. The suits were filed for recovery of the amounts of Rs.1,33,541/-, Rs.1,34,861/- and Rs.1,33,958/- with future interest @ 12% per annum respectively in O.S. Nos.134, 100 and 99 of 2017. 6. The suits were opposed by the defendant No.3 / the petitioner herein by filing written statements, briefly, stating as follows: a. This defendant’s father never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff. The plaintiff in O.S. Nos. 99, 134 of 2017 i.e., P. Vasudeva Reddy is brother of the defendant No.2’s wife and son of the defendant No. 1’s brother. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 100 of 2017 i.e., V. Siva Rami Reddy is maternal uncle of the defendant No. 2’s wife. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 colluded and created the suit promissory notes by forging the signature of the deceased M. Nagi Reddy. 5 BSB, J C.R.P.No.3427 of 2025 & batch b. It is false that the defendants alone are the legal heirs of the deceased M. Nagi Reddy. Late M. Nagi Reddy has another daughter by name Venkata Krishnamma. She died on 24.01.2017. c. This defendant is physically handicapped woman. After the death of father this defendant, this defendant and the other defendants have been enjoying the joint family’s landed properties without any partition. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have ill feeling against this defendant and created the suit promissory notes to cause loss to this defendant. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the suits. 7. Similarly, the defendant No.3 filed I.A.No.453 of 2021 in O.S. No. 100 of 2017 and I.A. No. 165 of 2022 in O.S. No. 134 of 2017. 8. The petitioner / the defendant No.3 in all the interlocutory applications contends that she recently had come to know that the promissory notes were scribed by her paternal uncle M. Chenna Kesava Reddy; that the registered will dated 06.06.2003 is in the custody of the respondents Nos.2 and 3; that the said document is very essential to compare the signature of her father with the disputed signature in the suit promissory note and to send them to a hand writing expert for comparison. 9. The plaintiff filed counters opposing all the petitions stating that the petitioner / the defendant No.3 filed the petitions at the fag end of its disposal; that the contemporaneous standard admitted signatures and writings of the executant of the suit promissory note, for the purpose of comparison are not available; and that the photostat copy of the document for the purpose of comparison is unacceptable. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the petitions. 6 BSB, J C.R.P.No.3427 of 2025 & batch 10. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed all the petitions filed for examination of the disputed signature observing that registered will dated 06.06.2003 was executed more than a decade prior to the alleged execution of the suit promissory notes and that the will deed is not of the contemporaneous period and there is no material on record to show that it is the sole available admitted signature of the deceased. The trial Court further held that in the absence of contemporaneous admitted signature of the deceased, reference to an expert would not assist the Court in arriving at a conclusive finding and that a Court is empowered under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act to compare the disputed signatures on its own without necessarily referring them to an expert. It is further observed by the trial Court that the specimen handwriting of the alleged scribe M. Chenna Kesava Reddy is neither admitted nor produced in any authenticated form, and that his connection to the scribe of the promissory note is itself a matter of dispute. 11. The trial Court dismissed I.A. No. 460 of 2021 observing that the petitioner has not shown any sufficient cause or due diligence for not marking the will at an appropriate stage. I.A. No. 459 of 2021, which is filed to receive the registered Will, dated 06.06.2003, was also dismissed by the trial Court observing that the document has no material bearing on the dispute. 12. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petitions, these revision petitions were filed contending that the trial Court ought to have considered that the expert’s opinion is required to scientifically scrutinize the signature to assist the Court and that no prejudice will be caused to the other party even if signature is compared by a 7 BSB, J C.R.P.No.3427 of 2025 & batch handwriting expert with the admitted signature as the process is to render justice on the basis of the pleadings substantiated by evidence. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court erred in dismissing the petitions without appreciating the importance of the opinion of an expert to prove the defence and that it is very essential for the defendant to put forth the defence. 14. In spite of service of notice on the respondent No.1, there is no appearance. The notice sent to the respondent No.1 was returned un- served with an endorsement ‘no such person in the address’. 15. As can be understood from the contention of the petitioner, the signature of late Mr. Nagi Reddy on the promissory note was denied and the same is to be examined with his original signature available in the registers of the office of the Sub-Registrar. Having allowed the petition in I.A. No. 742 of 2022 in O.S. No.100 of 2017 directing production of the original register containing the signature of late M. Nagi Reddy, the trial Court erred in dismissing the petitions seeking opinion of the expert to compare the disputed signatures on the promissory note with the original signature in the public register containing the registered Will No. 4 of 2003 called for. Though Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act empowers a Court to compare the signatures, it is advisable that opinion of an expert is taken. Therefore, insofar as the relief sought by the petitioner for opinion of an expert for examination of the disputed signature of M. Nagi Reddy, the petitioner can be granted the relief. 16. The other relief claimed by the petitioner that the handwriting of M. Chenna kesava Reddy be taken in the open Court for comparing it 8 BSB, J C.R.P.No.3427 of 2025 & batch by an expert, the petition is not clear as to what is to be compared with the handwriting so taken. 17. During the course of hearing, on clarification, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the content of the promissory note may be examined with reference to the handwriting taken in the open Court. 18. It is not the specific case that the content in the promissory note was handwritten by M. Chenna kesava Reddy. It is also not clear whether who made the disputed signature of M. Nagi Reddy. Moreover, M. Chenna kesava Reddy is not a party to the suits. Either the statement in the affidavit or the prayer sought is not clear. This Court is of the view that this relief claimed by the petitioner is not required, particularly, if the disputed signature of late M. Nagi Reddy on the promissory note is examined by an expert. 19. It is to be further noted that the relief seeking the opinion of an expert to examine the disputed signature of late M. Nagi Reddy is possible on receipt of original register from the Sub-registrar as called for vide order in I.A. No. 742 of 2022. Therefore, the relief granted in this regard is subject to availability of such record, since it is not known whether such record was produced or can be produced in furtherance of the direction given by the trial Court in I.A. No. 742 of 2022. 20. Since certified copy of the Will is not useful for comparison of the disputed signature, the relief in I.A. No. 459 of 2021 need not be granted. Consequently, the relief in I.A.No.460 of 2021 is also need not be granted. Moreover, the petition for production of the original register for the said purpose has already allowed directing the Sub- Registrar to produce the original record. Accordingly, C.R.P. Nos. 3448 of 2025 and 3535 of 2025 are liable to be dismissed. 9 BSB, J C.R.P.No.3427 of 2025 & batch 21. In the result, C.R.P. Nos. 3427 of 2025, 3438 of 2025 and 3449 of 2025 are allowed in part, only to the extent of directing the expert to examine the disputed signature of late M. Nagi Reddy with his admitted signature in the public register containing the registered Will No.4 of 2003 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, provided such record is produced. 22. In the result, C.R.P. Nos. 3448 of 2025 and 3535 of 2025 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dated: 29.04.2026 NSM / RAR 10 BSB, J C.R.P.No.3427 of 2025 & batch The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition Nos: 3427, 3438, 3448, 3449 and 3535 of 2025 Dated: 29.04.2026 NSM