APHC010024262025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 125/2025 Between: 1. GATTI SAROJINI, W/O. LATE SATYANARAYANA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. HOUSE WIFE, R/O.VENAYAMMAPETA, KADIYAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. VAKACHERLA VEERA NAGA VENKATA SATYA SURESH, S/o. Veera Mohana Rao, Hindu, Aged about 39 years. Business, R/o Door No.7- 29, Near Ramalayam, Dwarapudi Village, Mandapeta Mandal, East Godavari 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 topleased to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned Order dt.02/12/2024 which was passed I.A.N0. 206 of 2024 IN O.S.No.644 of 2022, on the file of VII Addl. Junior Civil Judge- cum- VII Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram and thereby restoring and allowing the Application (I.A.No. 206 OF 2024), as a consequesnce, in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased to stay all further Proceedings IN O.S.No.644 of 2022, on the file of 2 VS,J C.R.P.No.125 of 2025 VII Addl. Junior Civil Judge- cum- VII Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram, pending disposal of CRP, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A RAVEENDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. B.SUDHAKAR KUMAR 3 VS,J C.R.P.No.125 of 2025 The Court made by following ORDER: Aggrieved by the order dated 02.12.2024 in I.A.No.206 of 2024 in O.S.No.644 of 2022 passed by the learned VII Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-VII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram, dismissing the petition filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for sending Ex.A-1 promissory note for comparison, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The petitioner before this Court is defendant in O.S.No.644 of 2022. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.9,97,600/- basing upon a promissory note dated 16.10.2019. 3. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.206 of 2024 in O.S.No.644 of 2022, asserting that the signature on Ex.A-1 promissory note does not belong to her husband, late Gatti Satyanarayana, and that the respondent\plaintiff has no financial capacity to lend money. Further, the petitioner asserted that the respondent, in collusion with Gatti Perayya Naidu and Gatti Yedukondala Venkanna Babu, created false and fabricated documents. For proper adjudication of the dispute and to ascertain the truth, the petitioner sought for sending Ex.A-1 promissory note to Foreign Science Laboratory for comparison of disputed signature with the admitted signatures of Gatti Satyanarayana. 4 VS,J C.R.P.No.125 of 2025 4. The respondent\plaintiff filed counter, while denying the above allegations contending that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. It is also submitted that for sending the disputed signature for comparison, the petitioner was required to file documents contemporary to the date of Ex.A-1 containing admitted signatures of the executant as well as the original documents bearing her husband’s admitted signatures. Since the petitioner failed to file such original documents, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Moreover, the petitioner\defendant, examined as DW-1 and she admitted in her cross-examination that she is in possession of original registered documents, containing the left-hand thumb marks of her husband and also expressed no objection to send Ex.A-1 for comparison of the thumb mark on Ex.A-1 promissory note with those available on the registered documents in her custody. Therefore, instead of sending Ex.A-1 document for expert opinion on the signature, it is more appropriate and convenient to send Ex.A-1 for examination by a fingerprint expert for comparison of the thumb marks. The petitioner, who is lacking bona fides, cannot seek to send Ex.A-1 for signature comparison without filing the requisite original documents and as such requested to dismiss the petition. 5. After considering the rival submissions, the learned Judge, dismissed the said petition, holding that though the petitioner\defendant denied execution of the suit promissory note executed by her deceased husband in favour of the plaintiff on 16.10.2019 as alleged, a perusal of her written statement in the suit, shows that she did not take specific plea of forgery of 5 VS,J C.R.P.No.125 of 2025 her deceased husband’s signature on the suit promissory note as now mentioned in the present petition. Without such specific pleadings regarding forgery, the defendant had filed the present petition seeking the relief of sending the suit promissory note to an expert for comparison of her deceased husband’s signature with other documents. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed. 6. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits I.A.No.206 of 2024 is filed to refer the disputed signature on the suit promissory note for expert examination under Section 39(1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (formerly Section 45 of the Evidence Act). Learned trial Court erroneously held that there were no specific pleadings on forgery and thus refused to send the document for handwriting analysis, thereby ignoring settled law and the binding precedents. Learned counsel further relied on Doosi Rama Rao v. P M Reddy1, to contend that such expert referral should be permitted when forgery or fabrication is at issue, as it causes no prejudice to either party and ensures just adjudication of disputed facts. 8. Learned counsel for respondent submits that petitioner has failed to comply with the essential requirements for seeking expert opinion on the signature found on Ex.A1. The petitioner was required to file original 1 2023 (6) ALD 398 (AP) 6 VS,J C.R.P.No.125 of 2025 documents contemporaneous to the date of Ex.A1 containing the admitted signatures of the executant, as well as other original documents bearing her husband’s admitted signatures. However, the petitioner failed to file any such documents. As such, he prayed to dismiss the present civil revision petition. 9. On a perusal of the material on record, it is clear that the petitioner/defendant, who was examined as D.W.1 before the Court, admitted in the cross examination that she is having original registered documents, where the left hand thumb marks of her husband are existing and she also reported no objection for sending Ex.A1 promissory note for comparison of the thumb mark with the thumb marks available on the registered documents, which are in her custody. 10. Even the learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff reported no objection for allowing this revision petition on condition of petitioner/defendant furnishing original registered documents where the left hand thumb marks of her husband are existing as admitted by her in her cross examination, for comparison with the thumb impression on Ex.A.1 promissory note dated 16.10.2019. 11. In view of aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the order under revision suffers from serious legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court and hence, the order under revision is liable to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 02.12.2024 in I.A.No.206 of 2024 in O.S.No.644 of 2022 passed by the 7 VS,J C.R.P.No.125 of 2025 learned VII Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-VII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram, is hereby set aside. The petitioner/defendant shall file the documents containing her husband's left hand thumb impressions for comparison with the thumb impression on promissory note dated 16.10.2019, along with the admitted signatures/marks. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:12.09.2025. KBN