1 APHC010397852024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2065/2024 Between: P Bheemaraju ...PETITIONER AND K Rama Subbaiah ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G JAGADEESWAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 01.08.2024 passed in I.A.No.73 of 2024 in O.S No.145 of 2019 on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pattikonda (for short “the trial Court”). 2. The present impugned I.A.No.73 of 2024 was filed by thepetitionerbefore the trial Court under Order 26 Rule 10 CPC to send Ex.A1 promissory note after taking signatures in open court by the petitioner/defendant for expert opinion. 2 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is the defendant in the suit in OS No.145 of 2015 instituted by the respondent/plaintiff on the allegations that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.45,000/- on 25-08-2016 from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 suit promissory note. But, the petitioner never borrowed the amount under Ex.P1 Pronote and never agreed to pay the same. It is further stated that signatures on the stamp and beneath stamps are completely different and the signatures are not belonging to the petitioner. The Plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and Ex.A.1 was marked on his behalf. The petitioner is denying that Ex.A.1 is forged one. Hence, to establish genuineness of the signatures on Ex,A1, it is essential to send the Ex A1 and with admitted signatures for expert opinion. Hence the I.A. No.73 of 2024 has been filed. 4. On the other hand, the respondent/defendant filed counter in teh said I.A., contending that, the petition is filed for expert opinion, only with an intention to drag on the matter, even though the suit was filed in the year 2019. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs. 5. After considering the material on record and on considering the submissions of both the parties, the I.A No.73 of 2024 has been dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition came to be filed. 3 6. Heard Sri G. Jagadeeswar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Though notice served on the respondent, none appeared on his behalf. 7. Perused the material on record. 8. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial Court went wrong in dismissing the I.A which was filed under Order 26 Rule 10 of C.P.C. with a prayer to send the suit document Ex A1-promissory note for expert opinion. He submits that the learned Judge went wrong in observing, while dismissing the I.A. that the petitioner/defendant has come up with the instant petition only to drag on the matter and also went wrong in observing that sending the document for comparison of signature and receiving the report takes much time. He further submits that the trial Court also went wrong in saying that Court has inherent powers U/S.73 of Indian evidence Act to compare the signatures and to adjudicate the matter early, when there is severe protest from the petitioner/defendant that he never borrowed any amount from the respondent and he never made any signature up on any promissory note that too the Ex.A1. 9. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Judge also went wrong in coming to a conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to for the relief to send the Ex.A1-Promissory note for expert opinion, though there is severe protest from the petitioner in admitting the suit document Ex.A1 itself. He argued that the Learned Judge ought to have considered the fact that the 4 petitioner/defendant will not be suffered with the bogus claim of the respondent/plaintiff with the fabricated document with the fabricated signatures. He submits that the Learned Judge ought to have allowed the petition and send the suit document for expert opinion pertaining to the signatures of the petitioner/ defendant. 10. Since the suit pertains to the year 2019 the petitioner/defendant took a plea of forgery, and they did not choose to move the application at the earliest point of time. It is observed that, in the present case, the respondent/plaintiff has got examined as PW.1 and also examined the scribe of Ex.A1 promissory Note as PW.2 and they were cross examined by the petitioner/defendant. So, it clearly establishes that the petitioner came up with the present application, only to drag on the matter. Moreover the Court has inherent power under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act and can compare the signature so as to adjudicate the matter early. 11. It is pertinent to mention here the Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, extracted below: 73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved. In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person.[This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger impressions.] [Inserted by Act 5 of 1899, Section 3. ]73-A. Proof as to verification of digital signature.In order to ascertain whether a digital signature is that of the person by whom it purports to have been affixed, the Court may direct -(a)that person or the Controller or the Certifying Authority to produce the Digital Signature Certificate;(b)any other person to apply the public key listed in the Digital Signature 5 Certificate and verify the digital signature purported to have been affixed by that person."Explanation. : For the purposes of this section, "Controller" means the Controller appointed under sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.] [Inserted by Act 21 of 2000, Section 92 and Sch.II (w.e.f. 17.10.2000).] 12. In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly concluded and dismissed the application and found no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the trial Court warrants no interference. 13. Finding no merit in the instant civil revision petition and devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed 14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _______________________________ DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO Date: -02-2025 Gvl 6 THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO C.R.P.No.2065 of 2024 Date: 28.02.2025 Gvl