APHC010135802024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 637/2024 Between: 1. S M HAROON RASHEED, S/O S.K. ABDUL MUNAFF, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O PLOT NO. 89, YAAKHWAJA INDUSTRIES (NEW SIDIQUE TRADERS), INDIRA AUTO NAGAR, PHASE I AND II, GUNTUR. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SUKHAVASI AMMAYA CHOWDARY, S/o Sambaiah, Aged about 60 years, R/o D.No. 15-13-209, 5th Lane, RTC Colony, Guntur. ...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 tobeg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the Order dt.27.11.2023made in I.A.No. 690 of 2023 in O.S.No. 350 of 2022on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 please to stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No. 350 of 2022on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur pending disposal of the main C.R.P. and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 2 VS,J C.R.P.No.637 of 2024 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 pass extension of interim orders passed in IA 1/2024 in CRP. No. 637 of 2024 dated 15-10-2024 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SOMISETTY GANESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA The Court made the following: 3 VS,J C.R.P.No.637 of 2024 The Court made by following ORDER: The petitioner/defendant filed the present Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the orders passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur in I.A.No.690 of 2023 in O.S.No.350 of 2022. 2. The revision petitioner herein is the defendant and respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.350 of 2022. 3. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.350 of 2022 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur seeking recovery of amount under the alleged promissory note dated 02.05.2019. The petitioner/defendant filed his written statement stating that there are material alterations in the alleged pronote. 4. During the course of trial, at the time of petitioner’s evidence, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, r/w 151 CPC seeking to send Ex.A1 suit promissory note for expert opinion, as there are material alterations in the alleged suit promissory note. 5. The said application filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed on the sole ground that the petitioner/defendant has filed the said petition only to drag on the suit proceedings. Challenging which, the present revision is filed. 6. When the present petition came up for hearing on 15.10.2024, this Court has passed the following order in I.A.No.1 of 2024: 5…This petition is filed to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.350 of 2022 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. 4 VS,J C.R.P.No.637 of 2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, interim stay as prayed for is granted till 29.10.2024.6 7. Thereafter, the said interim stay was extended from time to time. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel representing the respondent. 9. On a perusal of the written statement filed by the petitioner/defendant, it can be observed that the Court below has rightly pointed out that he himself has admitted that he never borrowed any amount under the alleged promissory note and never executed the alleged promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. It is also admitted that he used to borrow petty amounts and pay back the same to the plaintiff since 2011. Likewise, in the year 2015, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- only, for which the plaintiff had obtained two blank signed pronotes from him towards security of the said amount. Due to his financial conditions, the petitioner/defendant, with a moral responsibility, handed over two blank signed pronotes to the plaintiff. The petitioner/defendant has already paid the amount together with interest, both by account transfers as well as in cash, long back. It is also admitted that except filling up the column of the amount, the other columns were left empty and as such he filed an application requesting the Court below to send his signature on the alleged pronote to expert to ascertain the age of the ink so that the truth would come out. 5 VS,J C.R.P.No.637 of 2024 10. While so, the defendant filed a petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, r/w 151 CPC to send Ex.A1 to ascertain the truth about material alterations, corrections and the age of ink of the signature of petitioner/defendant as well as the age of the ink of the date and amount column on the promissory note, to the Director, AP State Forensic Science Laboratory, Tech Towers, Opp. AP DGP office, Guntur-Vijayawada Byepass, Vaddeswaram, Near Mangalagiri, Guntur District. However, the petition was dismissed on the ground that it was filed only to drag on the suit proceedings. 11. However, on a perusal of the said order, it can be observed that though the petitioner/defendant/D.W.1, at the initial stage i.e., in the written statement itself, took a plea that the suit promissory note is one of the promissory notes given by the petitioner/defendant in the year 2015, and that the year in date column of the promissory note was altered by the respondent/plaintiff from 2011 to 2019 may not be correct. Any alterations, if made, should have been occurred between 2015 to 2019. 12. As the application filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 02.05.2023, this Court feels it relevant to extract Sections - 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act and the same is as under: "45. Opinions of experts.--When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting 2 [or finger impressions], the opinions upon that point of persons 6 VS,J C.R.P.No.637 of 2024 specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, 3 [or in questions as to identity of handwriting] 2 [or finger impressions] are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts. Illustrations (a) The question is, whether the death of A was caused by poison. The opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison by which A is supposed to have died, are relevant. (b) The question is, whether A, at the time of doing a certain act, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The opinions of experts upon the question whether the symptoms exhibited by A, commonly show unsoundness of mind, and whether such unsoundness of mind usually renders persons incapable of knowing the nature of the acts which they do, or of knowing that what they do is either wrong or contrary to law, are relevant. (c) The question is, whether a certain document was written by A. Another document is produced which is proved or admitted to have been written by A. The opinions of experts on the question whether the two documents were written by the same person or by different persons, are relevant." "73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved.4In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing, or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. The 7 VS,J C.R.P.No.637 of 2024 Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person. This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger-impressions." 13. Section 45 of the Act, 1872, inter alia' provides that the Court can call for evidence of experts to form an opinion regarding the genuineness of signatures and handwriting which are relied on by one party and disputed by another party. It is also relevant to note that the power to seek expert opinion under Section 45 of the Act, 1872 is discretionary and depends on facts of each case. The Courts under Section 73 of the Act, 1872 can themselves compare the signatures or handwriting. However, the Supreme Court has time and again cautioned that courts cannot act as experts in all the cases, unless it is glaringly clear that the signatures are same or are different, the Courts should normally call for an opinion from the experts. 14. In Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan1, the Apex Court held that, the Courts while dealing with handwriting or signatures cannot itself act as an Expert. The relevant paragraph is extracted below: "28. The opinion of a handwriting expert is fallible/liable to error like that of any other witness, and yet, it cannot be brushed aside as useless. There is no legal bar to prevent the Court from comparing signatures or handwriting by using its own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing and then from 1 (2012) 12 SCC 406 8 VS,J C.R.P.No.637 of 2024 applying its own observation to prove the said handwritings to be the same or different, as the case may be, but in doing so, the Court cannot itself become an expert in this regard and must refrain from playing the role of an expert, for the simple reason that the opinion of the Court may also not be conclusive. Therefore, when the Court takes such a task upon itself, and findings are recorded solely on the basis of comparison of signatures or handwritings, the Court must keep in mind the risk involved, as the opinion formed by the Court may not be conclusive and is susceptible to error, especially when the exercise is conducted by one, not conversant with the subject. The Court, therefore, as a matter of prudence and caution should hesitate or be slow to base its findings solely upon the comparison made by it. However, where there is an opinion whether of an expert, or of any witness, the Court may then apply its own observation by comparing the signatures, or handwritings for providing a decisive weight or influence to its decision." 15. It can be understood from the above that the Courts shall normally seek expert opinion when they are posed with a situation where they have to compare admitted signatures with disputed signatures. The Courts can refuse expert opinion only when no doubt exists regarding the genuineness of the signatures after comparison of the admitted and disputed signatures. In cases where even a slightest doubt exists, the Courts shall send the admitted and disputed signatures for expert opinion under Section 45 of the Act, 1872. 16. In the case on hand, as discussed above, the petitioner herein - defendant laid foundation by contending in the written statement that the suit 9 VS,J C.R.P.No.637 of 2024 promissory note was forged one. Admittedly, though there is delay in filing the application as observed by the Court below, the object and purport of Section 45 of the Evidence Act is to be considered by the trial Court and this Court. When there is specific denial by the petitioner - defendant that his signature was forged, it is not safe for the trial Court to come to a conclusion that the defendant did not explain the reasons properly for the delay caused in filing the aforesaid application and that it is only a delay tactic. The said finding is contrary to the object and purport of Section - 45 of the Evidence Act. As such, this Court is of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff in obtaining expert opinion by sending Ex.A1 - promissory note. 17. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 27.11.2023 in I.A. No.690 of 2023 in O.S.No.350 of 2022 passed by learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, is set aside, and I.A. No.690 of 2023 is accordingly allowed. The trial Court shall send Ex.A1 3 suit promissory note dated 02.05.2019 to the hand-writing expert to compare the signatures of the defendant on Ex.A1 3 suit promissory note with the admitted signatures of the defendant available on the vakalat, written statement and to be obtained in Open Court, for giving opinion, as to its genuineness, for proper adjudication of the matter. The expert shall also verify the documents and tender his opinion with regard to any alterations made therein from the period 2015 to 10 VS,J C.R.P.No.637 of 2024 2019. The said process shall be completed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 18. Accordingly, this 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:17.10.2025 JLV 11 VS,J C.R.P.No.637 of 2024 194 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 637/2024 Date:17.10.2025 12 VS,J C.R.P.No.637 of 2024 JLV