IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2322 OF 2023 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed being aggrieved by the Order Dt. 18.05.2023 passed in I.A. No. 880 of 2020 in O.S. No.5 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki. Between: Lachiboyina Pitchaiah, S/o Venkataiah, Occ Cultivation, aged 50 R/o. D. No. 9-789, Gurramvaripalem Village,h/o kalavakuru village, addanki mandal Prakasam District years ...PETITIONER AND Nusum Peddi Reddy, S/o Venkata Subbareddy, aged about 52 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. D. No. 6-345, Sankavarappadu Village, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District ...RESPONDENT lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed 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. 5 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, pending disposal of the main CRP lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the documents i.e. Certified Copy of Promissory Note, Vakalat and Written Statements in OS No. 5 of 2019 on the file of the court of Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki being filed in CRP No. 2322 of 2023. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent : SRI. YADAVALLI RAMESH The Court made the following ORDER : t >, APHC010320462023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3459] (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2322/2023 Between: Lachiboyina Pitchaiah ...PETITIONER AND Nusum Peddi Reddy ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the petitioner : Mrs. Nimmagadda Revathi Counsel for the respondent : Sri Yadavalli Ramesh This Court made the following: 2 JSJ C.R.P.No.2322 of2023 ORDER: In this Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/defendant challenges the order dated 18.05.2023 in I.A.No.880 of 2020 in O.S.No.5 of 2019, under which the trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 seeking to send the suit promissory note to an expert for comparing the signature the promissory note with his genuine signatures taken in open Court on blank papers. on 2. A suit for the recovery of money in O.S.No.5 of 2019 has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff based on a promissory note dated 26.12.2015, which is alleged to have been executed by the defendant. The defendant opposed the suit and, in his written statement, contended, inter alia, that the forged, that no consideration was passed under the note, and that the plaintiff, in collusion with the scribe and attestors, has concocted his signature to file the suit solely for wrongful gain. The counsel for the petitioner argued that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff, if the admitted signatures found on the suit promissory note were sent along with the specimen signatures taken in open Court for comparison by a handwriting promissory note was promissory I 3 JSJ C.R.P.No.2322 of 2023 expert. The respondent/plaintiff filed a counter and opposed the said application. 3. The counsel for the petitioner argues that when the petitioner disputes the genuineness of the promissory note in his written statement, the Court should have considered the plea by sending the alleged signatures of the petitioner in the suit promissory note along with the signatures taken in open Court on blank paper. The Court cannot dismiss the petition on the ground that the contemporaneous signatures were unavailable, as this would not prejudice the respondent/plaintiff. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent supported contending that although the petitioner/defendant has raised the plea of forgery, he has not filed any application seeking an expert’s opinion regarding the promissory note at the earliest opportunity. The petitioner did not produce any contemporaneous signatures, but wishes to submit his signatures, which will be obtained in open Court, to a handwriting expert for comparison with the allegedly forged signature on the promissory note. The counsel for the respondent further argued that the present petition has been filed solely to prolong the matter. Additionally, the counsel for the respondent asserted that the petitioner/defendant has not produced any contemporaneous 4. the order under revision . 4 JSJ C.R.P.No.2322 of2023 signatures; the signatures obtained in Court cannot be treated as contemporaneous signatures, and he prayed to dismiss the revision petition, relying on the judgment of this Court in P. Padmanabhaiah Vs. G.Srinivasa Rao' wherein it is held as under; “In the well considered view of this Court, the defendants signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be considered as signatures of comparable and assured standard as according to the plaintiff even by the date of the filing of the vakalat the defendant is clear in his mind about his stand in regard to the denial of his signatures on the suit promissory note and the endorsement thereon and as the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant might have designedly disguised his signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be ruled out prime facie. The view point being projected by the plaintiff that if the defendant is called upon to furnish his signatures in open Court, he might designedly disguise his signatures while making his signatures on papers in open Court is also having considerable force and merit. Unless the defendant makes available to the Court below any documents, with his signatures, of authentic and reiiable nature more or less of a contemporaneous period, and unless such documents are in turn made available to the expert along with the suit promissory note, the expert will not be in a position to furnish an assured opinion, in the well considered view of this Court. There is no point in sending to an expert the documents of doubtful nature and character and add one more piece of unreliable evidence and burden the record by wasting the time and money of the parties. When there are no signatures of comparable and assured standard on the material record before the trial Court, it is unsafe to obtain the signatures of the defendant in open Court and send the said signatures and also his vakalat and written statement to an expert for obtaining his opinion after comparison of the signatures thereon with the disputed signatures on the suit promissory note, as any such opinion obtained from a handwriting expert on such material is not going to be of any help to the trial Court in effectively adjudicating the lis more particularly in the light of the admitted legal position that expert's opinion evidence as to handwriting or signatures can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence.” ^AIR2016AP118(FB) 5 JS,J C.llP.No.2322 of2023 The suit was filed in 2019, and the plaintiffs evidence was completed on 11.03.2020. The suit was posted for the defence evidence on 16.03.2020. The defendant filed an I.A. under Section 5. 45 of the Evidence Act on 16.03.2020; thereafter, in view of COVID- 19, lockdown continued until 10.08.2020. The I.A. was dismissed on 18.05.2023 and the suit was posted for the defendant's evidence. The defendant’s evidence was closed on 24.11.2023, and after arguments were concluded, the matter was posted for pronouncement of judgment. Since the petitioner/plaintiff could not produce any contemporaneous signatures required by the expert for comparison with the disputed documents, or any other signatures that are as close as possible to the date of the disputed signature, it is well settled that a handwriting experfs opinion can be obtained only by comparing the disputed signature with the admitted signature in a contemporaneous document. When similar circumstances arose, the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Nimmagadda Padmanabha Rao vs Kosaraju Satyavathi^ held at para 5 as follows: 6. “Judicial notice can be taken note of the fact that with the passage of time, the pattern of signatures keeps on changing. The promissory note was of the year 1988. The petitioner did not indicate the documents, which ^ 2006 (3) ALD 673 6 JS.J C.R.P.No.2322 of2023 contains any signature of contemporary period. If the promissory note is to be compared now, with his admitted signatures, there is bound to be a clear difference. From the judgment in Medikonda Rama Swarajyalakshmi's case (supra), it is not clear as to whether the application for sending the disputed document for expert opinion, i/i/as filed before the concerned witnesses were examined. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under revision. 7. It is observed that the suit was filed in 2019 and the matter was posted for the pronouncement of judgment. It is true that the revision petitioner denied his signature in the disputed document and has not taken any steps to file a petition to compare the signature until the matter was posted for defence evidence. It is not even the petitioner's case that he was prepared to produce a contemporaneous signature, which the Court ideally would want to compare with the signatures made around the same time as the disputed one, or any other signature very close to the disputed date. Nothing prevented the petitioner from calling for proper documents and sending the disputed document to a handwriting expert for examination and report at the earliest point in time. Furthermore there is no contemporaneous signature contra available on record. It is necessary to provide contemporary signatures because handwriting characteristics can change over time. Unless the petitioner/defendant presents such documents along with the suit promissory note, obtaining a signature in open Court is unsafe as - 7 I JSJ C.R.P.No.2322 of2023 the expert may not be able to provide the right opinion. Therefore the trial Court is justified in dismissing the interlocutory application. 8. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Judge, and the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, SD/- B.CHITTIJOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR shall stand dismissed. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Addanki District 2. One CC to Sri. Nimmagadda Revathi Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Yadavalli Ramesh Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Amaravathi Prakasam Pradesh at 5. THREE CD COPIES MKP TAC HIGH COURT DATED :08/05/2025 ORDER CRP.No.2322 of 2023 DISMISSING THE CRP