APHC010610192022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI r THURSDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2280 OF 2022 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 set aside the order the Order dated 27.09.2022 passed in I.A. No. 666 of 2022 in O.S. No. 104 of 2019, on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram, YSR Kadapa District. Between: Fattimulla Chand Basha @ Shaik Fatimulla Chand Basha, S/o. SaifuHa, aged 54 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Vempalle Village and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner AND Venkannapalle Mahammad Shareef, S/o. Nanne Sab, aged 52 years, R/o. Kogatam Village, Kamalapuram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondent ( lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 104 of 2019, on the file of Civil Judge,(Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram, YSR Kadapa District. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent The Court made the following order: APHC010610192022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2280/2022 Between: 1.FATTIMULLA CHAND BASHA @ SHAIK FATIMULLA CHAND BASHA, S/0. SAIFULLA, AGED 54 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/0. VEMPALLE VILLAGE AND MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1.VENKANNAPALLE MAHAMMAD SHAREEF, S/o. Nanne Sab, aged 52 years, R/o. Kogatam Village, Kamalapuram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. ...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 set aside the order the Order dated 27.09.2022passed in I.A. No. 666 of 2022 in O.S. No. 104 of 2019, on the file of Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram, YSR Kadapa District and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 stay of alt further proceedings in O.S. No. 104 of 2019, on the file of Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram, YSR Kadapa District and pass 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VSAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following ORDER: Defendant in the suit filed the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order, dated 27.09.2022 in I.A.No.666 of 2022 in O.S.No.104 of 2019 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge- cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram, YSR Kadapa District. 2. (a) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.104 of 2019 for recovery of amount basing on the suit promissory note dated 10.03.2017. In the suit, the petitioner/defendant filed written statement specifically contending that the signature on the suit promissory note dated 10.03.2017 does not belong to him and it has been forged by the plaintiff with the active collusion of the witnesses. (b) During the course of trial, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.666 of 2022 before the trial Court under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send his admitted signatures on the Vakalat, written statement, chief affidavit Rayalaseema Grameena Bank for and other signatures available in comparison with the disputed signature on the suit promissory note dated 10.03.2017 to the Handwriting Expert, Central Lab, Ramanthpur, Hyderabad. 4. The said application was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner did not file any document with his signatures of authentic and reliable nature more or less of a contemporaneous period. The trial Court also relied upon a judgment of this Court in Lakkapamula Rani vs. Manda Batasari^ wherein 2022 (1) LS.254{A.P.) this Court under the similar ci makes available to the trial Court authentic and reliable nature unless such documents promissory note, the expert will not be i circumstances held that unless the defendant any documents with his signatures of more or less of a contemporaneous period and in turn made available to the expert along with the are in a position to furnish an assured opinion, in the well considered view of this Court, there iIS no point in sending to an expert the documents of doubtful nature and character and add one more piece of unreliable evidence and burden the record by wasting the time and money of the parties. (b) The court has also held that comparable and assured standard when there are no signatures of on the material on record before the trial Court, it is unsafe to obtain the signatures of the defendant in open court and send the said signatures and also his vakalat expert for obtaining his opinion after with the disputed signatures on the suit promissory note obtained from a handwriting expert on such material is not and written statement to an comparison of the signatures thereon . as any such opinion going to be of any more particularly in the expert’s opinion as to handwriting signatures can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantiate help to the trial Court in effectively adjudicating the lis light of the admitted legal position that or evidence. 5. . Heard Sri V.Sai Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Though notice was sent to the learned was served on the respondent, counsel for the respondent and the same none appeared on behalf of the 5 respondent. However, this Court granted an interim order on 15.07.2025 staying all further proceedings in.O.S.No.104 of 2019. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant has also stated that as on today, the suit is pending for trial. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of Telangana High Court under the similar circumstances in CRP No.2471 of 2023 wherein the suit is of the year 2014 and the written statement was filed denying the execution of the said suit promissory note. Issues were framed in the year 2020 and thereafter, the petitioner made his efforts to elicit the truth from the plaintiff in the year 2022 that he has not executed the suit promissory note. But, he failed in the said attempt and filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 before the trial Court under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 praying to send the original suit promissory note dated 13.11.2011 for handwriting expert by comparing the disputed signature on the promissory note with the admitted signature of the defendant on his vakalat and written statement filed in the aforesaid suit and also with his signatures to be obtained in open Court for giving his opinion as to its genuineness for proper adjudication of the matter. The said I.A was dismissed as in the case on hand. However, the Hon’ble Telangana High Court by duly considering the fact that when there is a specific denial by the defendant on the ground of being forged, it is not safe for the trial Court to come to a conclusion that the defendant did not explain the reasons properly for the delay caused in filing the aforesaid application and also held that when the petitioner has laid foundation by contending in the written statement that the suit promissory note was forged one, the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act ought not have been rejected and. accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 19.06.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.S.No.132 of 2014 and directed the trial Court to send Ex.A.1 promissory note dated 13.11.2011 to the Handwriting expert to compare the signatures the defendant on Ex.A-1 with the admitted signatures of defendant of available on the vakalat, written statement and to be obtained in opinion as to its genuineness for proper adjudication of the matter. open court for giving 8. In the case at hand also it can be observed that the petitioner/ defendant has laid foundation contending in the written statement that the suit promissory note was forged and also denied the signatures on the said promissory note. Though the written statement was filed in the year 2017, during the course of trial in the year 2022, the petitioner filed the present Interlocutory Application, however with delay. When the petitioner has already laid foundation by contending in the written statement by disputing his signature in the suit promissory note in the written statement itself, the trial court ought not have been rejected the Interlocutory application filed by the defendant. 9. The Hon’ble High Court of Telangana, in CRP No. 2471 of 2023, while referring to Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, as well as the judgments in: 7 . State (Delhi Admn.) v. Pali Ram • Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka • Thiruvengadam Pillai v. Navaneethammal • Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan • Katike Bheem Shankar v. Mrs. T. Lax mi @ Punyavathi has held that the Court should seek the expert opinion when they are posed with the signature where they have to compare, admitted and disputed signatures and accordingly, allowed the CRP by directing the trial Court to send the document to the handwriting expert seeking to compare the signatures with the admitted signatures available on the vakalat, written statement and to be obtained in open court for giving opinion as to its genuineness for proper adjudication of the matter. In view of the aforementioned expressions of the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in CRP No.2471 of 2023, the present Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 27.09.2022 in I.A.No.666 of 2022 in O.S.No.104 of 2019 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram, YSR Kadapa District. 10. The trial court is directed to send the suit promissory note dated 10.03.2017 to the handwriting expert. Central Lab, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad for comparison of signatures of the petitioner/defendant on the suit promissory note with the admitted signatures of the petitioner/defendant available on vakalat, written statement and also the signatures to be obtained in open court 8 for giving opinion as to its genuineness for proper adjudication of the matter. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. Sd/- SHAIK WIOHD. RAFI assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Judicial Magistrate of First Civil Judge, (Junior Division)-cum- Class, Kamalapuram, YSR Kadapa District. Sri. V Sai Kumar Advocate [OPUC] 1. The 2. OneCCto 3. The Section Officer, V.R Section High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 4. Two CD Copies Vna HIGH COURT DATED:28/08/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 2280 OF 2022 ANOH^% ml 2 3 SEP 2025 -.r Curreni Seciion ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS