APHC010022342025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Between: Rachamalla Annapurna Gummadi Venkata Kanaka Durga Rao Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V JAGGI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 123/2025 ...PETITIONER AND Gummadi Venkata Kanaka Durga Rao ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3299] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 123/2025 ORDER: Heard Sri K.Satyanand, learned counsel representing Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Considering the nature of the dispute, issuance of notice to the respondent is dispensed with. 3. The plaintiff/respondent filed O.S.No.1429 of 2019 in the Court of I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada for recovery of suit amount with interest against the petitioner/defendant. 4. The petitioner filed written statement inter-alia denying the contents of the plaint and also disputing the promissory note. 5. The petitioner filed I.A.No.598 of 2024 under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act to sent Ex.A1-promissory note to compare with his admitted signature to the expert for his opinion. The petitioner submitted the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 22.05.2017 for such comparison. 6. The plantiff/respondent filed objections. 7. Learned Court vide order dated 12.12.2024, which is under challenge in this petition, rejected I.A.No.598 of 2024 on the ground that the disputed signature could not be compared with the Photostat signatures on the certified copy of the sale deed. Learned Court placed reliance in the judgment of Siddaboina Radhika v. Bairaboina Santhosh1. 8. The law is well settled that disputed signatures cannot be compared with the Photostat signatures. Consequently, so far as the impugned order is concerned, there is no illegality. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that original sale deed dated 22.05.2017 is available with the bank and if the application had been allowed, he could have submitted the original by summoning the same from the bank. 10. The aforesaid plea has been taken in para-5 of the present Civil Revision Petition. 11. The said plea was not taken before the learned Court. 12. However, considering the aforesaid submission, as also para-5 of this petition, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file fresh application along with the necessary application for summoning of the original sale deed from the bank. 13. On such application being made, learned Court shall decide the same in accordance with law by giving due opportunity to both the parties. 14. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of finally. No order as to costs. 1 CRP.No.3812 of 2023 decided on 01.03.2024 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Dated: 14.02.2025 AG 39 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 123/2025 Dated: 14.02.2025 AG