APHC010300752025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1402/2025 Between: 1. KANDUKURU GHOUSE PEERU @ GHOUSE PEER, S/O.LATE ALLABAKASH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. GOVT EMPLOYEE, R/O D.NO.5/172, VELAVALI VILLAGE,RAJUPALEM MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KANDUKU HASSAIN BASHA, , S/o. Late Allabakash, aged 44 years. Goldsmith,R/o. D.No.7/4329, Srinivas Nagar, Proddatur Town, Kadapa District, A.P. ...RESPONDENT The Court made the following Order:- 1. The civil revision petition is filed for following relief:- <to pleased to allow the present Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 25.02.2025 passed in I.A.No.94 of 2025 in O.S.No.248 of 2022 on the file of the Honorable Principal Junior Civil judge, Proddatur, Kadapa District, and be further pleased to pass such other or further orders as this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, and pass….= 2. This present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the docket order dated 25.02.2025 passed in I.A. No. 94 of 2025 in O.S. No. 248 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, Kadapa District. 3. The revision petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The parties to this civil revision petition hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed before the trial court for the sake of convenience. 4. The brief facts of the case is that, the petitioner and respondent are own brothers, and there are family disputes between them. The present suit has been filed against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of the suit amount under two promissory notes said to have been executed by the petitioner/defendant in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The petitioner/defendant is a Government employee working as a Village Revenue Assistant for Velavalli Revenue Village, Rajupalem Mandal, Kadapa District. The petitioner/defendant alleged that the subject promissory notes said to have been executed by the him bear with forged signatures, as he never executed the said promissory notes. He further stated that he has been suffering from paralysis for a considerable period, much prior to the alleged dates of execution of the promissory notes, and due to his medical condition, he has been physically incapacitated from affixing his signatures. In place of affixing his physical signature, he has consistently been using his thumb impression for all official and personal documents. 5. In view of the pleadings of the defendant, to prove his incapacity to sign the alleged promissory notes due to paralysis, the petitioner/defendant filed the interlocutory application No.94 of 2025 seeking for comparison of his admitted signatures in the service records from the years 2015 to 2018 maintained by the Tahsildar, Rajupalem Mandal, Kadapa District, for production of admitted signatures of the defendant. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that the court below, without considering the plea of the petitioner/defendant, erred in rejecting the request. Since the petitioner/defendant specifically pleaded that the subject promissory notes were forged one and that he became incapacitated to affix any signatures much prior to the year 2019, the request to call for his prior admitted signatures from the service records ought to have been allowed for proper determination of the dispute between the petitioner/defendant and the respondent/plaintiff. However, the court below erroneously concluded that the signatures in the service records for the period from the year 2015 to 2018 may not be relevant or contemporaneous with the signatures on the disputed promissory notes, which is contrary to the facts and the settled law. 7. On perusal of the order of the court below dated 25.02.2025 in I.A.No.161 of 2017 in O.S.No.12 of 2015, It is observed that the Court below rightly held that even if the I.A. is to be allowed, the admitted signatures available in the service record pertain only to the period from the year 2015 to 2018, whereas the disputed promissory notes relate to the years 2019 and 2020. It is a settled proposition of law that for comparison of signatures in alleged forgery cases, the admitted signatures should be contemporaneous. In the present case, contemporaneous admitted signatures are not available. The petitioner, instead of producing such contemporaneous signatures, filed a petition seeking for production of service records of an earlier period, which are not relevant or weigh for the purpose of comparison. It is further observed that as per the petitioner’s contention that, he became incapacitated to sign any official or unofficial documents on or before the year 2019, which is a fact known to him, even at the time of institution of suit, he would have been filed required medical certificate that effect along with his written statement itself. Once the suit was filed in the year 2022, he ought to have taken steps to obtain his service record or any other documentary proof by submitting proper application to his employer within three years from the filing of the suit. However, without doing so, as and when the matter was posted for trial and evidence, the petitioner suddenly had filed the present civil revision petition, apparently with an intention to delay the proceedings. 8. On perusal of the conduct and omissions of the petitioner, it is clear that the present revision petition has been filed only to drag the matter and to prevent final judgment to be passed by the trial court. In any view, this court opined to hold that the present civil revision petition lacks merits for any interference by this court and the submissions of the petitioner are devoid of substance, merits and lack of any medical evidence. 9. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 18.08.2025 klk 225 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA C.R.P.NO: 1402 of 2025 18.08.2025 klk