APHC010482022024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2631/2024 BETWEEN: Gorle Venkata Naidu ...Petitioner AND Botsa Rama Krishna ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. TADDI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner who is the defendant in the Suit for recovery of amounts. 2. The petitioner herein who is defendant in the Suit filed I.A. No.157 of 2024 in O.S. No.6 of 2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Bobbili, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, requested to send three small books to the Government Hand Writing expert, Mangalagiri, Amaravati, for his opinion, in the interest of justice and the said application came to be dismissed vide order dated 29.08.2024, by learned trial Court Judge observing that “As per defendant, plaintiff and his two assistants signed in Ex.B1 to B3 without any proof of signatures of specific persons i.e. plaintiff, three persons signed in Ex.B1 to B3 mere sending of signatures along with Ex.B.1 to B3 no purpose would be served even though Ex.B1 to B3 sent to the expert opinion.” 3. Assailing the order dated 29.08.2024, in I.A. No.157 of 2024, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed on the grounds that the order of learned Trial Court Judge, is contrary to law and vitiated by material irregularities and for other grounds. 3 4. The petitioner defendant received a loan from the respondent plaintiff, subject to daily repayment, for either business or necessities. The respondent defendant kept a pocket-sized book to attest to the payment for evidence purposes. Anybody who ever receives money, respondent plaintiff or his agents will sign the payment receipt in the aforementioned pocket note book. 5. In order to compare the admitted signature with the book, the petitioner defendant has now filed an application under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the book to an expert opinion to compare with admitted signature. The trial Court dismissed the said application. Only a brief or short signature on the note book is endorsed by the respondent defendant or his agents and even an expert is unable to compare the signatures. 6. During the respondent defendant's cross-examination on Ex. B1 through B3, the petitioner in this case may confront with the aforementioned signatures on the pocket note book. And as rightly observed by the trial Court, no purpose would serve even though the Ex. B1 to B3 send to the expert opinion. 7. In the opinion of the Court, the observation made by the Court below is not vitiate by any material irregularities, as voiced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court see any flaw in the order passed by learned trial Court Judge. 4 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO Date: 22.01.2025 Harin 5 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO 232 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2631 of 2024 Date: 22.01.2025 Harin