1 APHC010541802024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3197/2024 Between: Gudavalli Babu Rao ...PETITIONER AND Thota Appaiah ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M V S ANIL KUMAR R Counsel for the Respondent: 1. A K KISHORE REDDY The Court made the following Order: The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.74 of 2019 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, against the petitioner herein, for recovery of an amount of Rs.14,84,981/-, on the basis of certain pronotes which have been marked as Exs.A1 to A5. 2. The trial Court allowed the suit by a Judgment and decree, dated 08.08.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein moved A.S.No.14 of 2023. During the pendency of this appeal, the petitioner moved I.A.No.164 of 2 2024, under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for comparison of the signatures on the pronotes, marked as Exs.A1 to A5, with certain signatures of the petitioner, which were marked as Exs.A6 to A18, by the trial Court. 3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court, by an order dated 05.11.2024. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of this Civil Revision Petition. 4. Sri M.V.S. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had disputed the signatures on Exs.A1 to A5 from the very inception of the case and that the cross examination of the witnesses of the respondent, had been conducted by the petitioner, on this basis. The learned counsel would submit that in such circumstances, there is every need for comparison of the signatures by an expert. The learned counsel contends that such comparison would assist the Court in ascertaining whether the signatures on Exs.A1 to A5 are the signatures of the petitioner or not. The learned counsel would submit that the decision of the Appellate Court, in rejecting such a request, is clearly not in the interest of administration of justice. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also rely upon the Judgment of a Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad vs Ravi Surya Prakash 3 Babu (died) per L.Rs. and Others1. In this Judgment, the issue came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is whether disputed handwriting/signatures could be sent to a handwriting expert for opinion, after comparison with admitted signatures, even when there is a gap of considerable time. The Full Bench, after reviewing the law, had answered the reference in the following terms: It is essentially within the judicious discretion of the Court, depending on the individual facts and circumstances of the case before it, to seek or not to seek expert opinion as to the comparison of the disputed handwriting/signature with the admitted handwriting/ signature under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court is however not barred from sending the disputed handwriting/ signature for comparison to an expert merely because the time gap between the admitted handwriting/signature and the disputed handwriting/signature is long. The Court must however endeavour to impress upon the petitioning party that comparison of disputed handwritings/signatures with admitted handwritings/signatures, separated by a time lag of 2 to 3 years, would be desirable so as to facilitate expert comparison in accordance with satisfactory standards. That being said, there can be no hard and fast rule about this aspect and it would ultimately be for the expert concerned to voice his conclusion as to whether the disputed handwriting/ signature and the admitted handwriting/signature are capable of comparison for a viable expert opinion. The view expressed by the Division Bench in JANACHAITANYA HOUSING LIMITED V/s. DIVYA FINANCIERS1, as to the stage of the proceedings when an application can be moved by a party under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, continues to hold the field and there is no necessity for this Full Bench to address that issue. 6. This Judgment, which is on the question of comparison with signatures despite gap of time, is not on the issues raised before this Court. 1 2016 (2) ALT 248 (F.B) 4 7. The trial Court, while dismissing the petition, took the view that the petitioner, except disputing signatures had not taken any steps to get the same verified at any point of time during trial and that the present application came to be filed only after numerous opportunities had been granted to the petitioner to commence his appeal. In that view of the matter, the Appellate Court took the view that the application appears to have been filed more than for the purpose of delaying the hearing in the appeal and that, in any event, the comparison of the signatures can be carried out by the Appellate Court itself and there was no need for referring the matter to an expert. 8. In such circumstances, this Court, does not find any reason to interfere with the order as the exercise of discretion by the Appellate Court, is founded on the conduct of the petitioner as well as the provisions of Section 73 of Evidence Act which permits the Court itself to undertake a comparison of the signatures. 9. Accordingly, this Civil Revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J RJS 5 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3197/2024 Dt: 03.01.2025 RJS