APHC010496012024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2736/2024 Between: 1. KINTALI SUJANA, , W/O. SAIRAM, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, HOUSE HOLD, R/O. D. NO. 18-295, GEETHAMNDIR VEEDHI, SOMPETA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO.B3 2ND FLOOR, SATYA RESIDENCY, APARTMENTS SEETHAAMA COMPLEX, 43-21-30, VENKATA RJU NAGAR, DONDAPARTHY, VISAKHAPATNAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. GADDIBOYINA RAMA, , W/o. Krishna Rao, aged about 39 years. House hold, R/o. Flat No. 105, 1st Floor, Aruna Apartment, Nanubala Veedhi, Back side of Raithu Bazar, Janikarama Colony, Srikakulam Town and District ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to begs to present the Memorandum of grounds before this Honorable Court against the orders dated 13-08-2024 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikakulam in vide LA. No.260/2023 in LA. No.6/2023 in O.S. No.8/2023, copy of Certified dated 30-09-2024, IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to SRS,J C.R.P.No.2736 of 2024 stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.8 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikakulam, in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to RECEIVE the document which is legal notice got issued to others; through her counsel, dated 25-06-2022 to comparison with the alleged suit promissory note in O.S. No.8/2023 before the III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikakulam, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Isukapatla.Ajay Krishna Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: The petitioner (defendant in the suit), filed the above civil revision petition, assailing the order dated 13.08.2024 in I.A.No.260 of 2023 in I.A.No.6 of 2023 in O.S.No.8 of 2023 on file of the learned III Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikakulam. 2. Heard Sri Ajay Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.8 of 2023, on the file of the learned III Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikakulam, for recovery of the amount, on the strength of a promissory note dated 10.10.2020. Pending the suit, the defendant (petitioner herein) filed I.A.No.260 of 2023, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, to send the promissory note to the handwriting expert for comparing the genuine and disputed signature. In the affidavit filed in support SRS,J C.R.P.No.2736 of 2024 of the petition, it was pleaded that the petitioner/defendant did not execute the promissory note and the signature on the suit promissory note is not that of the petitioner. The suit promissory note is a fake and forged one. It was further pleaded that the respondent filed a counter and opposed the application. The Trial Court, by order dated 13.08.2024, dismissed the said application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Trial Court failed to consider the material available on record in a proper perspective. He would also submit that the signature of the petitioner is available in Vakalat and the same can be compared with that of the petitioner’s signature on the promissory note. 5. The point for consideration is : “Whether the order dated 13.08.2024 in I.A.No.260 of 2023 in I.A.No.6 of 2023 in O.S.No.8 of 2023 on the file of the learned III Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikakulam, suffers from illegality?” 6. As seen from the material available on record, the respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.8 of 2023 for recovery of the amount. The petitioner, in the written statement, pleaded that the suit promissory note is a rank forgery and brought into existence by the husband of the respondent with the active connivance of attestors and the scribe. Except for filing the interlocutory application to send the document to an expert, the petitioner did not produce any document containing the admitted signature of the petitioner for comparison. 7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that the signature on the Vakalat, being admitted, can be compared, to the signature on the promissory note, this Court is not persuaded with the said submission. The signature on the vakalat cannot be treated as an admitted signature for comparison. There is every chance of disguising the signature. The trial court appreciated all the aspects and dismissed the petition. Page 4 of 5 SRS,J C.R.P.No.2736 of 2024 8. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any merit in the civil revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 08.01.2025 TVN SRS,J C.R.P.No.2736 of 2024 397 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2736 OF 2024 Date : 08.01.2025 TVN