APHC010228422022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 931 OF 2022 Between: 1. BALAM KONDAYYA, S/o.Appa Rao, aged about 59 years, R/o.10-13-7/11, Tanuku, West Godavari District. 1. CHINTA PRABHU SRINIVASA REDDY, S/o.Venkata Reddy, aged about 59 years, R/o.10 Godavari District. 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 toaggrieved by the Order dt.31 2022 in I.A.No.1855/2019 in O.S.No.462/2019 on the file Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge. Tanuku, West Godavari District, IA NO: 1 OF 2022 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 931 OF 2022 BALAM KONDAYYA, S/o.Appa Rao, aged about 59 years, 7/11, Tanuku, West Godavari District. ...Petitioner AND 1. CHINTA PRABHU SRINIVASA REDDY, S/o.Venkata Reddy, aged about 59 years, R/o.10-13-7/16, Old Town, Tanuku, West ...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 toaggrieved by the Order dt.31 2022 in I.A.No.1855/2019 in O.S.No.462/2019 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge. Tanuku, West THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA BALAM KONDAYYA, S/o.Appa Rao, aged about 59 years, ...Petitioner 1. CHINTA PRABHU SRINIVASA REDDY, S/o.Venkata Reddy, 7/16, Old Town, Tanuku, West .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 toaggrieved by the Order dt.31-03- of the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge. Tanuku, West 2 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.462 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari District, pending disposal of the above Revision Petition in this Hon'ble Court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent P S P SURESH KUMAR The Court made the following order: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 931 OF 2022 ORDER: The instant Civil Revision Case has been preferred against an order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku in connection with I.A.No.1855 of 2019 in O.S.No.462 of 2019. 2. It appears that the learned Trial Court has turned down an application filed by the defendant/petitioner under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, whereby the defendant intends to compare his signatures over a promissory note dated 15.05.2017, alleging in his pleading that it is a forced and fabricated document. The learned Trial Court has turned down the application on the ground that the defendant did not file any contemporaneous signature of such promissory note, and thus, the prayer for sending the promissory note to an expert cannot be possible. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, on the date of filing the written statement, the defendant/petitioner had already filed the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. So there is no delay on the part of the defendant to challenge the promissory note. He further submits that the learned trial Court 4 may ask for contemporaneous signatures of the parties, but the outright rejection of the application itself is bad in law. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents raised objections and submits that the prayer for forwarding the promissory note to the expert is solitary one and no documents having contemporaneous signature of the petitioner/defendant was placed on record. Thus, the learned Trial Court had no option but to reject the application. He further submits that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. Accordingly, the instant revision application has no merit. 4. The petitioner, in support of his contentions, has placed reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble High Court reported in BipiliKesava Rao Vs Sangada Seshagiri. He submits in the cited case, the application for sending document to an expert was filed at the time of arguments, learned Court below dismissed the application, against which, the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court. After framing the issue, this Court considered the earlier Full Bench decision and opined, particularly in paragraph Nos.9 and 10, in favor of the petitioner. 5 Para Nos.9 and 10 are extracted hereunder: 9. Thus the Full Bench has clarified both the above points under consideration to the effect that the requirement of contemporaneity of the signatures is concerned, the Court is not barred from sending the disputed handwritings/signatures for comparison to an expert merely because no contemporaneous handwritings/signatures for comparison were readily available. However, as a matter of prudence the Court will make an endeavour to impress upon the petitioning party that the 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 the expert to give satisfactory opinion. 10. In the light of above jurisprudence, in my view the trial Court was not right in rejecting the petition of the defendant on the ground that there were no contemporaneous signatures. In the impugned order we do not find the trial Court directing the petitioner/defendant to produce his contemporaneous signatures on authenticated documents to refer the same to an expert. Hence the dismissal of the expert petition on that ground is not valid. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has also referred to a decision of this Court reported in P.Padmanabhaiah Vs. G.Srinivasa Rao, and submits that in similar circumstances, the Coordinate Bench of the then composite High court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh opined that, without any contemporaneous 6 signatures, an application for sending a document to the expert for comparison is not possible. He relies on paragraphs Nos.8 and 9 of the said Judgment, which read as follows: 8. “The defendant who is seeking comparison, by an expert, of his signatures on vakalat and written statement on one hand with the disputed signatures, which are on exhibits A1 and A2 on the other, has not produced into the Court below, along with his petition, any authentic documents like registered sale deeds or any other registered documents containing his signatures of a contemporaneous or any other period. The defendant has not even produced any other [unregistered] documents containing his signatures which are prior in point of time to exhibits A1 and A2. It is not his case that there are no such documents. It is settled law that the science of identifying thumb impressions is an exact science and does not admit any mistake or doubt. Nevertheless, the opinion of an expert in regard to genuineness or otherwise of signatures and/or hand writings is purely opinion evidence and such opinion evidence in regard to signatures and/or handwriting will not be considered as an opinion based on exact science as in the case of thumb impressions. In addition, it is necessary to observe that expert's opinion evidence as to handwriting or signatures can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. In 7 the well considered view of this Court, the defendants signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be considered as signatures of comparable and assured standard as according to thePlaintiff even by the date of the filing of the vakalat the defendant is clear in his mind uo about his stand in regard to the denial of his signatures on the suit promissory note and the endorsement thereon and as the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant might have designedly disguised his signatures on the Vakalat and the Written plaintiff that if the defendant is called upon to furnish his signatures in open Court, he Statement cannot be ruled out...prima facie. The view point being projected by the might designedly disguise his signatures while making his signatures on papers in open to the Court below any documents, with his signatures, of authentic and reliable nature court is also having considerable force and merit. Unless the defendant makes available made available to the expert along with the suit promissory note, the expert will not be more or less of a contemporaneous period, and unless such documents are in turn in a position to furnish an assured opinion, in the well considered view of this Court. Further, it is not in dispute that the defendant in his cross-examination has denied his signatures on his vakalat filed in the suit and also could not affirm or say for sure as to whether his signature on the affidavit ind also lieu of examination in chief is his signature or not. There is no point in sending 8 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. When there are no signatures of comparable and assured standard on the heaparal 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 and written statement to an expert for obtaining his opinion after comparison of the signatures thereon with the disputed signatures on the suit promissory note, as any such opinion obtained from a handwriting expert on such material is not going to be of any help to the trial Court in effectively adjudicating the lis more particularly in the light of the admitted legal position that expert's opinion evidence as to handwriting or signatures can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. [9] The Court below did not advert to any of the relevant aspects of the matter and failed to deal with the material contentions of the plaintiff and simply allowed the petition just on mere askance of the defendant. For the above stated reasons, this Court finds that the trial Court is not justified in passing the order impugned in this revision. 9 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. Considering the entire case in hand, it appears that in P.Padmanabhaiah (referred supra), cited by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner therein intends to compare the signatures appearing on the suit promissory note with the signatures of the petitioner in written statement and vakalth. The Coordinate Bench of the then composite High Court is of the opinion that, without filing any contemporaneous documents having signatures of the petitioner it is not possible to assess or whereby the signatures of the petitioner comparing with the later signature placed in the vakalath and written statement and it has also has been observed that the parties may change their signature to get desired relief. 8. On the other hand, in Bipili Kesava Rao (referred supra), relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon’ble Division Bench held that the Court has every opportunity to ask for contemporaneous signatures from the parties to compare the handwriting and the signatures appearing in the document in question, on the basis of it, the Division Bench has allowed the 10 Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order passed by learned Trial Court. 9. In considering the cirucmstances, contensions and the citations placed before this Court by the parties, the following issues arise for determination in this instant Civil Revision Petition: i) Whether the order passed by the learned Trial Court below in rejecting the application filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act is tenable in the eye of law?. ii) Secondly, whether non-filing of contemporaneous signatures by the parties itself, a valid ground to turned down the application under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act? 10. In this particular case, it appears that a money suit was filed by the plaintiff praying for decree for recovery of money on the basis of promissory note alleged to have been signed and executed by the defendant on 15.05.2017. By filing written statement, defendant took a plea that the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated one. 11 11. So, on the basis of the gist of the matter before the learned court below, it appears that the promissory note and challenge thereof is only on the basis of the decree as sought for by the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is able to prove that the defendant has executed the promissory note, the decree would be passed in favor of the plaintiff and if the defendant is successful to challenge the promissory note, on the ground that it was forged and fabricated, then it could not be conceded the decree. 12. In this particular case, the liability and executability of the promissory note is the moot question to be decided by the learned trial Court. It further appears that the defendant, while placing his pleadings for the first time, has also placed the application being filed in I.A.No.188 of 2019 under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, only to forwarded the promissory note to the Government Examiner of the Questioned Documents, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, to compare his signature in the promissory note. Surprisingly, the defendant has not placed any signature or has not asked for comparison of signatures on promissory note with vakalath and written statement. 12 13. On the plain reading, the learned Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that, in the absence of contemporaneous signatures of any admitted signature of the defendant, it would be difficult to get an expert opinion satisfactorily. 14. A plain reading of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Civil Judge has not committed any error as because there are no contemporaneous signatures with him to compare the signatures with the promissory note; but so far as a suit has already placed on record by the plaintiff and defence has also placed by the defendant by filing written statement, it is the primary duty of a Civil Court to go into the merits of the matter and decide whether the particular questioned document/promissory note is required to be dealt with according to the law. Merely rejecting the application under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act is not sufficient, because of the fact that the pleadings of the parties are only based on the particular document. In this count, I am of the opinion that the learned trial court has committed error in dismissing such application 15. The application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, is necessary to determine the suit in hand. Learned Trial 13 Court must allow such application by giving necessary direction to the parties, who intend to compare the signatures according to the law. I make it clear that the observation of the learned Coordinate Bench of the composite High Court, Hyderabad regarding the evidentiary value of the expert opinion is well accepted but in the attending fact situation as the entire suit is based upon the validity and executability of the promissory note. I think it is necessary that the learned Trial Court must have dealt with the application in proper perspective. 16. Under the above observation, I am of the view that the application under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act filed by the petitioner cannot require initially to file with a contemporaneous signatures. If it appears to the court that such application for sending the document for comparison of a signature is necessary to determine the issue in hand, then the application must have been allowed and consequently the parties may be directed to place the contemporaneous signatures. Thus, if appears that the order passed by the learned trial Court is illegal and improper, accordingly, the same is set aside. The learned counsel for the parties appraised this court that the trial in this case has already been concluded and the matter is fixed for 14 arguments. At this juncture, I direct the petitioner to approach the learned court below within one week from the date of passing of this order, with contemporaneous registered document containing his signature so that the same may be forwarded to the expert for opinion. Learned trial Court shall, thereafter receive the report and shall dispose of the suit according to the law. 16 With the above observation, the instant CRP is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications pending if any shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated 21-11-2025 KKV 15 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 931 OF 2022 Dated 21-11-2025 KKV