APHC010462412024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2456/2024 Between: Talluru Mohan Rao ...PETITIONER AND Bolledu Subba Rao ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MARELLA RADHA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. TRINATH CHOUDARY KOLLA The Court made the following order: The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.99 of 2016, in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bapatla, for recovery of money from the petitioner herein on the foot of the promissory note. The petitioner disputed his signature on the said promissory note which has now been marked as exhibit-A1. The petitioner had also moved I.A.No.302 of 2017, under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, for comparison of the signature on the pro note with contemporary signatures of the petitioner. This application was allowed, on 17.04.2023, and the disputed signature along with the admitted signatures of the petitioner were sent to the Director, Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh, for comparison. However, the said documents were returned with the 2 endorsement “kindly refer to the letter cited, it is to submit that the documents have been examined and any conclusive opinion could not be drawn on the available standards. Hence, the documents received as herewith returned. Inconvenience caused in this regard is very much regretted.” 2. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed I.A.No.586 of 2024 with the following prayer as here under:- “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioner/defendant prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit a reputed a Government handwriting expert i.e Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Documents Divisions, Madhuban Chowk, near Rohin Court, Bhagawan Mahavir Marg, Sector-14, Rohini Delhi-110085 to examine the alleged signatures said to be petitioner/defendant's in the suit promissory note with that of his specimen signatures all ready obtained by this Hon'ble Court, elicit the age of the ink of the signature of attestors with that of writings of remaining contents of Ex.A1, elicit the age of writings on the stamp with that of writings of remaining contents of Ex.A1, types of ink material used on material of Ex.A1 and direct the said expert to give his opinion about the genuineness of the same as stated above and pass such other necessary orders in the interest of justice and equity” 3. This application was dismissed by the Trial Court by an Order, dated 05.08.2024. 4. Aggrieved by the said Order of dismissal, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Civil Revision Petition. 5. The Trial Court took the view that the petitioner having failed in the earlier round, could not have filed a similar petition again especially since the steps were not taken for resending the signatures after complying with the objections made by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Mangalagiri. The Trial also took the view that the comparison of age of ink etc., is also not permissible. 6. Smt. Marella Radha, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the return of the documents containing the signatures for comparison, without any conclusive opinion should not result in the petitioner being shut out from having the signatures examined. She would contend that, the view of the Trial Court that, the present application should not have been filed and 3 steps should have been taken for obtaining more signatures is incorrect. She would further submit that the existing signatures are sufficient for a proper comparison and merely because one expert probably has come to the conclusion that such comparison is not possible should not be a reason for shutting out the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 19.04.2024, in C.R.P.No.85 of 2024, wherein the Learned Single Judge had taken the view that the burden of proof in demonstrating that the disputed signature on the pro-note Exhibit A-1 would be on the respondent herein. She would further submit that in such circumstances, it would be for the benefit of both sides that a proper comparison is carried out. 8. The Forensic Science Laboratory, Mangalagiri, has taken the view that the comparison of the signatures is not possible with the existing signatures. This would mean that additional signatures should have been obtained or the petitioner should have made out a case as to why the view of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Mangalagiri is incorrect and how comparison of signatures is still possible. Since neither of these steps were taken, it cannot be said that the view of the Trial Court is incorrect. 9. Apart from this, that there are certain additional prayers, which were not taken in the earlier application. These prayers seeking verification of the age of ink used by the petitioner as well as the signature appended by the petitioner and the witness and the comparison of the age of the writings of the remaining contains in exhibit A-1 with age of writing on the stamp affixed to Exhibit A-1 etc are not possible in view of the various Judgments of this Court, to the effect that the comparison of age of ink, is technically not possible at this stage. 10. For all the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, it is left open to the petitioner to seek comparison of the 4 signatures, if necessary steps of either producing additional signatures which are appended to the public documents which are admissible or a case is made out that view of the Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory, Mangalagiri, that the existing signatures are not capable of comparison, is incorrect. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. BSM 5 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2456 of 2024 06-02-2024 BSM