APHC010604402024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: Nissankararao Kodanada Ramalah@ Ramu Pirati Kakuleswara Rao Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ARUN SHOWRI G Counsel for the Respondent: 1. ABDUL HAMEED BAIG MOHAMAAD The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 173/2025 Nissankararao Kodanada Ramalah@ Ramu ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: ARUN SHOWRI G Counsel for the Respondent: ABDUL HAMEED BAIG MOHAMAAD The Court made the following: [3311] THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.173 of 2025 ORDER: This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the unsuccessful defendant against the order, dated 05.11.2024, dismissing I.A.No.1919 of 2024 in O.S.No.641 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tenali, filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and under Section 151 CPC to send exhibit B2, consent deed, dated 12.01.2021, containing the signature of the plaintiff to the government handwriting expert, A.P State Forensic Laboratory, Mangalagiri, Guntur district along with the admitted signature of the plaintiff (as document writer) on exhibit B3/registered sale deed, dated 12.01.2021, executed by the daughter of the defendant in favour of the father of the plaintiff for comparison and opinion. 2. Heard Ms. Shaik Shahedaz, learned counsel representing the counsel for the petitioner. 3. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit against the petitioner/ defendant for recovery of amount based on a promissory note. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement denying the execution of the promissory note and took a plea of forgery. The evidence on behalf of plaintiff was over and the defendant was examined as DW1 and the matter stood posted for further evidence of the defendant. On 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.173 of 2025 12.01.2021, the plaintiff and the defendant executed consent deed (Angeekara patram) by signing on the said document. The said consent deed was marked as exhibit B2. As the plaintiff denied the consent deed, the petitioner was advised by his counsel to send exhibit B2/ consent deed, dated 12.01.2021, containing the signature of the plaintiff to the government handwriting expert for comparison with the admitted signature of the plaintiff on the registered sale deed/exhibit B3 as document writer. 4. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition observing that the signature on a photostat copy cannot form basis for comparison and opinion. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred this revision. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defence of the petitioner is that the promissory note has not been executed in the manner claimed by the plaintiff and it is necessary for the defendant to establish that the consent letter under exhibit B2 contain the signature of the plaintiff, and therefore, the same needs to be examined by an expert with the admitted signature of the plaintiff on the registered sale deed marked as exhibit B3, however, the trial Court dismissed the petition having observed that it is necessary to seek opinion of an 4 BSB, J C.R.P.No.173 of 2025 expert, but on the ground that exhibit B2 is a photostat copy, though it is original document as per the instructions to her. 7. No representation is made for the respondent in spite of the effort made by the learned counsel for the petitioner informing the counsel for the respondent about hearing and passing over the matter till 01.25 pm. 8. As can be seen from the contentions of the defendant in the written statement, there is a specific case pleaded about the consent agreement, dated 12.01.2021 which is the basis of the subsequent events that lead to filing of the suit. Therefore, there is burden on the defendant to prove the said fact pleaded. In the impugned order, the trial Court opined that, to substantiate the contention, the petitioner’s application can be considered, but the intended document, being a photostat copy and not the original, the relief cannot be granted. 9. It is correct that a photostat copy of the disputed document cannot be sent for comparison or examination of the disputed handwriting. Since the petitioner contends before this Court that the agreement, dated 12.01.2021 (disputed document) being original, was admitted in evidence and marked as exhibit B2 and the admitted document, i.e., a registered sale deed, as exhibit B3, an opportunity can be given to the petitioner to seek opinion provided both the documents are originals. 5 BSB, J C.R.P.No.173 of 2025 10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 05.11.2024, passed in I.A.No.1919 of 2024 in O.S.No.641 of 2023, and consequently, I.A.No.1919 of 2024 is allowed, subject to the availability of the original documents/exhibits B2 & B3 or else, this petition shall be treated as dismissed and the order of the trial Court shall remain intact. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J 12-02-2025 RAR