APHC010416632024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2231/2024 Between: Mutyalapati Satyanarayana (died) and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Mutyalapati Pedda Galeiah and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. T JANARDHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.-- The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2231 of 2024 ORDER: The petitioners herein are the defendants and the 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.82 of 2017 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Markapur, which is filed for recovery of money basing upon the promissory note. 2. When the said suit was posted for arguments, after lapse of six years of the suit and after the sole defendant died on 15.12.2021, the legal heirs of the deceased defendant filed an application in I.A.No.277 of 2024 in O.S.No.82 of 2017 to send promissory notes, dated 04.09.2014 to 09.09.2014 for expert opinion to compare the signatures of the said promissory notes with the signatures on passport issued on 13.05.2008. The trial Court has dismissed the said application on the ground that the said document is not a contemporaneous document as there is nearly six years gap with the promissory notes. 3. The proposition in the judgment of the composite High Court in Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad Vs. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu and others1 is that “What is the meaning of contemporaneous; and what is the measure of contemporaneity”, held as hereunder: "b) What is the meaning of contemporaneous; and what is the measure of contemporaneity. 1 AIR 2016 Hyderabad 118 Full Bench 3 Comment: Contemporaneous means occurrence at same period of time. No specific measure could be assigned to the element of contemporaneity. One of the famous authors in the field of examination of documents, Ordway Hilton, in his famous book Scientific Examination of Questioned Documents, states that material written two or three years before or after the disputed writing serve as satisfactory standards and the same is enunciated in page 11 of Annexure enclosed." 4. According to the judgment of the full Bench in Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad’s case (referred supra), there should be a two or three year gap between contemporaneous document, but in this case, there is six years gap. The signature may alter over time even though in the present case, it has not been changed purposefully. Consequently, the trial Court conclusions in the contested order are valid and hence, this Court is hesitate to grant any kind of relief. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date : 12.03.2025 SPP 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 2231 of 2024 Date : 12.03.2025 SPP