APHC010358412025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1889/2025 Between: 1. KANCHARLAPALLI PITCHAYYA,, S/O LATE KOTESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC-CULTIVATION, R/O VADLAMANNADU VILLAGE, GUDLAVALLERU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, AP ...PETITIONER AND 1. PAGOTI SIMHACHALAM, S/o Late Gaddeyya, aged about 57 years, Occ-Cultivation, R/o Jamuru Village, Narasannapeta Mandal Srikakulam District, AP ...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 topleased to set aside the order and decree dated 16-05-2025 in I.A.No.771 of 2024 in O.S.No.55 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Narasannapeta and consequently allow the same and pass IA 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 Pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.55 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Narasannapeta, Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh, pending disposal of the revision petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. YASWANTH GADE Counsel for the Respondent: 1. RIZWAN ALI SHAIK The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri K. Pruthvi Raj, learned counsel representing Sri Yaswanth Gade, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rizwan Ali Shaik, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The defendant in O.S.No.55 of 2023 filed the above revision, aggrieved by the order dated 16.05.2025 in I.A.No.771 of 2024 in O.S.No.55 of 2023 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Narasannapeta, Srikakulam. 3. The parties to the revision are referred to as per their status in the suit. 4. Plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.55 of 2023 for recovery of the amount on the strength of a promissory note dated 09.01.2021, said to have been executed by the defendant. 5. Defendant filed a written statement and pleaded forgery and fabrication. 6. Pending the suit, the defendant filed I.A.No.771 of 2024 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send Ex.A1, the suit promissory note, to the handwriting expert for comparison of the signature with his admitted signature. Along with the affidavit, the defendant did not file any document containing his admitted signature. 7. The plaintiff filed a counter and opposed the application. 8. The trial court, by order dated 16.05.2025, while relying upon the decision of this Court in Taidala Yesupadam and another vs. Burugu Srinu1, dismissed the application. 9. Along with the revision, a copy of the gift deed dated 10.09.2018, said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of his son, is filed. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant would submit that the defendant could secure the original document at a later point in time, and hence, the same could not be filed before the trial Court. He would also submit that non-filing of the original document is neither intentional nor deliberate. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that since no document was filed along with the application, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application by assigning proper reasons. 12. No doubt, along with I.A.No.771 of 2024, no document containing the admitted signature of the defendant was filed. The trial Court, relying upon the decision rendered in Taidala Yesupadam’s case, supra, rightly dismissed the application. 13. Normally, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this court would not have interfered with the order, but for, the copy of the registered document dated 10.9.2018 filed along with the revision petition and the plea in the written statement. In fact, learned counsel 1 2023 (1) ALT 343 (AP) appearing for the petitioner submitted that the original document will be filed before the trial Court. 14. In Janachaitanya Housing Limited, Hyderabad, Vs Divya Financiers2, a Division Bench of the composite High Court, while ordering a reference, observed as follows: “No time could be fixed for filing applications under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the disputed signature or writings to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion and same shall be left open to the discretion of the Court; for exercising such discretion when exigencies so demand, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the each case”. 15. Later, a full Bench of the composite High Court in Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad Vs Ravi Surya Prakash Babu3 while ordering a reference observed as follows: It is essentially within the judicious discretion of the Court, depending on the individual facts and circumstances of the case before it, to seek or not to seek expert opinion as to the comparison of the disputed handwriting/signature with the admitted handwriting/signature under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court is however not barred from sending the disputed handwriting/signature for comparison to an expert merely because the time gap between the admitted handwriting/signature and the disputed handwriting/signature is long. The Court must however endeavour to impress upon the petitioning party that comparison of disputed handwritings/signatures 2 2008 (4) ALD 339 3 2016(2) ALD 1, with admitted handwritings/signatures, separated by a time lag of 2 to 3 years, would be desirable so as to facilitate expert comparison in accordance with satisfactory standards. That being said, there can be no hard and fast rule about this aspect and it would ultimately be for the expert concerned to voice his conclusion as to whether the disputed handwriting/signature and the admitted handwriting/signature are capable of comparison for a viable expert opinion. The view expressed by the Division Bench in Janachaitanya Housing Limited v. Divya Financiers (supra), as to the stage of the proceedings when an application can be moved by a party under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, continues to hold the field and there is no necessity for this Full Bench to address that issue. 16. Given the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 16.05.2025 in I.A.No.771 of 2024 in O.S.No.55 of 2023 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Narasannapeta, Srikakulam. I.A.No.771 of 2024 is restored to the file. Defendant shall file the original registered gift settlement deed dated 10.09.2018 before the trial Court, within three weeks from today. Thereupon, the learned trial Court shall consider and pass appropriate orders in I.A.No.771 of 2024 strictly as per law. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 19.09.2025 IKN