APHC010011762025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 166/2025 Between: Anapu Ramarao and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Pamina Kurma Rao ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M. SAPTHAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. CHALLA AJAY KUMAR The Court made the following ORDER: The defendants in the suit filed the above revision against the docket order dated 17.12.2024 in I.A.No.757 of 2024 in O.S.No.34 of 2024 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponduru. 2. Respondent/plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.34 of 2024 for recovery of an amount of Rs.14,30,733-33 paise, the principal being Rs.11.00 lakhs on the strength of promissory note dated 12.12.2024 allegedly executed by the defendants/ revision petitioners. 3. The defendants filed a written statement and pleaded material alterations of the principal amount. In Para No.16 of the written statement, it 2 was specifically mentioned that the 1st defendant put the figure Rs.1,00,000/- with his handwriting at the top and thereafter, the 1st defendant and his wife subscribed their respective signatures across the revenue stamps. Later, another “1” was added with a different pen and filled the blanks in the promissory note. 4. The trial in the suit was commenced. At that juncture, the defendants filed I.A.No.757 of 2024 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the suit promissory note to the expert to ascertain whether any material alteration was made on the top of the alleged suit promissory note in respect of principal amount, date of execution and also to verify whether two different handwritings are appearing or not and to compare the age of ink. The respondents failed a counter and opposed the application. 5. The trial court by docket order dated 17.12.2024, reliance upon the judgment in Rellu Rambabu and others vs. Adapa Srinivasa Rao1 and dismissed the application. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested with it. He also would submit that the revision petitioners pleaded material alterations and hence requested the trial court to send the suit promissory note to the expert for comparison of the signatures and thus contend that dismissal of the application by the trial court by placing reliance upon the judgment in Rellu Rambabu’s case is without application of mind to the facts of the case. 7. Sri G.Venkateswarlu, the learned counsel would contend that the trial court did not commit any mistake and in fact, considered all the aspects and dismissed the application. 1 2024 (3) ALT 215 (S.B) 3 8. The point for consideration is: Whether the docket order dated 17.12.2024 in I.A.No.757 of 2024 in O.S.No.34 of 2023 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponduru suffers from any illegality? 9. As narrated supra, the plaintiff/ respondent filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.14,30,733.33 paise on the strength of the promissory note dated 12.12.2024. In Para 13 of the written statement, the revision petitioners/ defendants, a plea was raised about the material alteration of the suit promissory note. In Para No.16, it was explained that the 1st defendant put the figure Rs.1,00,000/- with his handwriting and thereafter, the 1st defendant and his wife scribed their respective signatures. Rs.1.00 lakh was materially altered to “Rs.11.00 lakhs with a different pen and in fact, blanks in the promissory notes were filled. 10. The trial Court, dismissed the application by placing reliance upon Rellu Rambabu’s case (referred supra). In that case, it was observed that “the signatures obtained in open court, on suit summons, vakalat and written statement would be later in point of time than the suit document thus it is not safe to take specimen signature for comparison with the disputed signature”. 11. In the case at hand, the petitioner pleaded material alteration of the principal amount i.e. “Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.11,00,000/-. The handwriting expert will be in a position to give his opinion regarding the usage of different inks regarding material alteration, which will go to the root of the issue. The ratio in Rambabu’s case will not apply to the facts of this case. 12. In the opinion of this court, the trial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested with it in a proper perspective and hence, the docket order dated 17.12.2024 suffers from illegality brooks interference. 13. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed. The docket order dated 17.12.2024 in I.A.No.757 of 2024 in O.S.No.34 of 2023 is hereby set aside. 4 I.A.No.757 of 2024 stands allowed in part, to the extent of ascertaining the expert opinion regarding material alteration of the principal amount. The trial Court shall send the promissory note for the expert regarding the material alteration pleaded by the defendants/revision petitioners regarding the principal amount forthwith. The revision petitioners shall pay expenses to the handwriting expert. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 19.03.2025 KA 5 161 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 166/2025 Date : 19.03.2025 KA