APHC010012442025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 128/2025 Between: Gujju Yellayya Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Pureddi Varalakshmi ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P RAMJI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following order: The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.1186 of 2016, before the Learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note which was marked as Ex. A-1. 2. The petitioners herein filed I.A.No.583 of 2019, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for comparison of the admitted signatures of the defendants with the disputed signatures on Ex. A-1. This application, for sending the documents to the State Forensic Laboratory at Vijayawada, was 2 RRR, J C.R.P.No.128 of 2025 allowed. However, the State Forensic Laboratory at Vijayawada had returned the documents with a request to transmit further documents containing the admitted signatures and hand writings of the petitioner around the period 2014, for the purpose of comparison. 3. Thereupon, the petitioners moved I.A.No.125 of 2022 to send the admitted and disputed signatures for comparison to the Forensic Laboratory at Hyderabad. This application was allowed and the documents were sent to the Forensic Laboratory at Hyderabad. After receiving all these documents, the Forensic Laboratory at Hyderabad returned the documents stating that the Forensic Laboratory at Mangalagiri, Guntur District, was the appropriate lab. 4. Thereafter, the petitioners again moved I.A.No.816 of 2022, for sending the documents to the Forensic Laboratory at Mangalagiri, Guntur District. This application was dismissed by the Trial Court, by an order, dated 10.11.2022, holding that no purpose would be served by sending the documents to the Forensic Laboratory at Mangalagiri, in as much as, the Forensic Laboratory at Vijayawada, had already informed that comparison, without further production of material, was not possible. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 6. Sri Reddy Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the Forensic Laboratory at Mangalagiri can make a proper 3 RRR, J C.R.P.No.128 of 2025 comparison in as much as there is no necessity of sending the admitted signatures of the year 2014 and any admitted signatures within a gap of 10 years is adequate and permissible. 7. The question of what would be permissible and the requirements of the expert, for the purpose of comparison, would have to be left open to the expert in question. In the present case, the expert, to whom the documents had been sent, had required additional documents. In such circumstances, the expert cannot be forced to give his comments, without adequate material being placed before the expert. 8. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Trial Court and this Civil Revision Petition is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J 07.03.2025 MJA 4 RRR, J C.R.P.No.128 of 2025 136 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 128 of 2025 07.03.2025 MJA