APHC010031722020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 220/2020 Between: 1. NALLAPATI SRINIVASA RAO, NALLAPATI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. ANKARAO 40 YEARS , WORKING AS WATCHMAN IN RDO OFFICE OF GURAJALA, R/O. PALLEKONA VILLAGE BHATTIPROLU MANDAL, REPALLE JCJC. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KOLLI VENKATA PURNA KUTUMBA SRINIVASA KRISHNA, S/o. Srirama Murthy,56 years Cultivation, R/o. H.No.1-42/1 Singupalem Village, Repalle Manda, Guntur 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 to set aside the order and decree dated 05-11-2019 passed in I.A.No.454 of 2019 in O.S.No.87 of 2018 by the Senior Civil Judge Repalle, Guntur District and allow the Civil Revision Petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 all further proceedings in O.S.No. 87 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Repalle,Guntur District, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 1. MARELLA RADHA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. N SRIHARI 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 220/2020 ORDER: This Revision petition is filed seeking to set aside the order and decree dated 05-11-2019 passed in I.A.No.454 of 2019 in O.S.No.87 of 2018 by the Senior Civil Judge Repalle, Guntur District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing respondent. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff has filed O.S.No.87 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Repalle, against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only), basing on a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the petitioner/defendant on 16.08.2025 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The petitioner herein has filed a written statement stating that the alleged promissory note was created and fabricated and also that the alleged promissory note was six (6) years old. Pending the said suit, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.454 of 2018 under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, requesting to send the suit promissory note dated 16.08.2015 to the Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Mangalagiri for determining the age of ink of the signature and also the writings in the promissory note. The Principal Senior Civil Judge has dismissed the said application on 05.11.2019, challenging which the present C.R.P., is filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4 4. The Court below has dismissed the said application filed by the petitioner/defendant duly relying upon the judgment in Polana Jawaharlal Nehru Vs.Maddirala Prabhakara Reddy1, wherein the Court has held that “Age markers can give correct age of the writings. However, they are not used in India”. Duly referring the said judgment, the Court below has held that no useful purpose will be served by referring the document to the Handwriting Expert and as such dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in G.V.Rami Reddy Vs. D.Mohan Raju2, wherein under similar circumstances, this Court duly referring to the judgment referred by the Court below in Polana Jawaharlal Nehru’s case, has held that the said case cannot be taken as precedent and further relying upon the judgment in Kambala Nageshwara Rao Vs. Kesana Balakrishna3, has held as under: “Therefore, in a given case, though the ink or a pen was manufactured in yester years, there is a possibility that a person may either deliberately or un-knowingly use such ink/pen to make a writing or signature several years after its manufacture. In such an event, mere determination of the age of ink/writing by an expert will not clinch the issue as to when exactly the maker has written/signed the document Therefore, the Courts must take note of this aspect while appreciating the rival contentions. This point is answered, accordingly. 1 2017(3) ALT 712 2 2019 (4) ALT 400 (A.P.) 3 2014(1) ALT 363 5 6. In view of the law laid down in G.V.Rami Reddy Vs. D.Mohan Raju, the present Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Repalle in I.A.No.454 of 2019 in O.S.No.87 of 2018, directing the Court below to send the said document for the expert opinion as expeditiously as possible. However, the said procedure shall be completed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 04.08.2025. UPS 6 98 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.220 of 2020 Date : 04.08.2025 UPS