APHC010026242025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 141/2025 Between: 1. PAGIDALA NARASIMHA REDDY, S/O. GANGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O. PLOT NO.303, JAGATHI HOMES, N.G.O. COLONY, MYDUKUR ROAD, PRODDATUR TOWN, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THUMMALA VEERABRAMHANANDA REDDY, S/o. Malleswara Reddy, aged about 66 Years, R/o. Flat No.207, Raja Rajeswari Residency, Sastri Nagar, Proddatur Town, YSR (Kadapa) 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 dated 04.12.2024 passed in I.A.No. 819 of 2024 in O.S.No.428 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur and 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.428 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, pending disposal of above C.R.P and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 VS,J C.R.P.No.141 of 2025 1. SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Counsel for the Respondent: 1. D VIGNESHWAR REDDY The Court made the following: 3 VS,J C.R.P.No.141 of 2025 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant, aggrieved by the order dated 04.12.2024 passed in I.A.No.819 of 2024 in O.S.No.428 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the defendant in O.S.No.428 of 2023 filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.11,56,000/- together with further future interest. 3. During the course of trial, after completion of plaintiff’s evidence and the petitioner/defendant having adduced his evidence as DW1, when the matter is coming up for further evidence of defendant, the petitioner filed I.A.No. 819 of 2024 under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act seeking to send the specimen signatures of the defendant on the Vakalath and written statement along with signatures contained in the suit promissory note dated 26.09.2022 for comparison by a handwriting expert and to obtain a report thereon. 4. The said I.A. was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner, having contended that Ex.A1 is a forged and fabricated document, failed to secure contemporaneous signatures pertaining to the year of Ex.A1. The signatures of the petitioner/defendant on the vakalatnama and the written statement cannot be considered as comparable or assured standard signatures, and the defendant would also likely distinguish his signatures if obtained now in open Court, as the petitioner/defendant was clear in his mind about his stand in 4 VS,J C.R.P.No.141 of 2025 regard to denial signatures on the suit promissory note. Challenging the said impugned order the present civil revision petition is filed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside since it is not a speaking order and no valid reasons were given, the Court below mechanically passed the impugned order without application of mind. The judicial discretion is required to be exercised in accordance with the settled principles of law. The Court below ought to have seen that the petitioner had taken a plea of fabrication of Ex.A1 from the beginning of the case and as well as in written statement, since the petitioner did not execute the alleged promissory note in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The Court below ought to have seen that the respondent/plaintiff has forged, fabricated and manipulated the Ex.A1 promissory note. The petitioner/defendant should get an opportunity to send Ex.A1 Promissory note to expert for comparison of signatures on the promissory note. The Court below ought to have seen that no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff if the promissory note is referred to the expert and the case will be decided on merits. It is further submitted the petitioner/defendant is working as Lecturer in Rayalaseema College of Physical Education, Rayavaram, Kothapalli Panchayat, Proddatur Mandal. The observation of the Court below that the petitioner/defendant did not secure the contemporaneous signatures pertaining to the year Ex.A1 Suit promissory note and further obtaining the signatures of petitioner now in the open Court can also be not considered as the petitioner/defendant is clear in his mind about his stand in 5 VS,J C.R.P.No.141 of 2025 regard to the denial of his signatures on the suit promissory notes and the petitioner/defendant would designedly distinguish his signatures if obtained now in the open Court is not correct. The Court below failed to consider that sending Ex.A1 document to expert for opinion is the only remedy available to the petitioner to prove that the same is forged and fabricated and an opportunity shall be given to have the evidence of an expert as well and later the Court can examine the entire evidence on record, including the evidence of an expert. Therefore, prays to allow the present civil revision petition. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supported the order impugned. 7. In view of the aforesaid rival submissions and perusal of record would reveal that the respondent/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of Rs.11,56,000/- basing on the promissory note dated 26.09.2022. In the said suit, the petitioner/defendant filed his written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiff including execution of promissory note. 8. In view of the pleadings in the written statement, it is clear that the defendant has denied the execution of the suit promissory note and also pleaded that the same was forged one. Thus, the defendant laid foundation for filing an application to send the suit promissory note for expert’s opinion to compare the signatures with the admitted signatures contained in Vakalat, Written Statement and also to be obtained in open court, so as to arrive at a just conclusion as to genuineness of the suit promissory note. There is no 6 VS,J C.R.P.No.141 of 2025 dispute that the trial Court has power to compare the signatures of the party. At the same time, the object of Section 45 of the Evidence Act i.e., expert opinion has to be considered by the trial Court. 9. It is 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 specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, 3 [or in questions as to identity of handwriting] 2 [or finger impression] 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. 7 VS,J C.R.P.No.141 of 2025 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 signatures, writing or seal with others admitted or proved. --- In 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 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.” 10. 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. 8 VS,J C.R.P.No.141 of 2025 11. In State (Delhi Admn.) v. Pali Ram1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that prudence requires that a judge shall obtain expert opinion in the matters of comparison of handwriting. The relevant paragraph is extracted below: “30. The matter can be viewed from another angle, also. Although there is no legal bar to the Judge using his own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing, even without the aid of the evidence of any handwriting expert, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence and caution, hesitate to base his finding with regard to the identity of a handwriting which forms the sheet- anchor of the prosecution case against a person accused of an offence solely on comparison made by himself. It is, therefore, not advisable that a Judge should take upon himself the task of comparing the admitted writing with the disputed one to find out whether the two agree with each other; and the prudent course is to obtain the opinion and assistance of an expert. 12. In Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka2, the Apex Court held that where there is even slightest of doubt in the minds of the judge while comparing the admitted and disputed signatures, such signatures shall be sent for expert opinion under Section 45 of the Act, 1972. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below: “37. This section consists of two parts. While the first part provides for comparison of signature, finger impression, writing etc. allegedly written or made by a person with signature or writing etc. admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written by the same person, the second part empowers the Court to direct any person including an accused, present in Court, to give his specimen 1 (1979) 2 SCC 158 2 (1997) 7 SCC 110 9 VS,J C.R.P.No.141 of 2025 writing or fingerprints for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare it with the writing or signature allegedly made by that person. The Section does not specify by whom the comparison shall be made. However, looking to the other provisions of the Act, it is clear that such comparison may either be made by a handwriting expert under Section 45 or by anyone familiar with the handwriting of the person concerned as provided by Section 47 or by the Court itself. 38. As a matter of extreme caution and judicial sobriety, the Court should not normally take upon itself the responsibility of comparing the disputed signature or handwriting and in the event of the slightest doubt, leave the matter to the wisdom of experts. But this does not mean that the Court has not the power to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature as this power is clearly available under Section 73 of the Act. [See: State (Delhi Admn.) v. Pali Ram [(1979) 2 SCC 158 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 389 : AIR 1979 SC 14].” 13. In Thiruvengadam Pillai v. Navaneethammal 3 the Apex Court observed that it is risky to arrive at a conclusion regarding signatures and handwriting without an expert opinion. The relevant paragraph is extracted below: “16. While there is no doubt that Court can compare the disputed handwriting/signature/finger impression with the admitted handwriting/ signature/ finger impression, such comparison by Court without the assistance of any expert, has always been considered to be hazardous and risky. When it is said that there is no bar to a Court to compare the disputed finger impression with the admitted finger impression, it goes without 3 (2008) 4 SCC 530 10 VS,J C.R.P.No.141 of 2025 saying that it can record an opinion or finding on such comparison, only after an analysis of the characteristics of the admitted finger impression and after verifying whether the same characteristics are found in the disputed finger impression. The comparison of the two thumb impressions cannot be casual or by a mere glance. Further, a finding in the judgment that there appeared to be no marked differences between the admitted thumb impression and disputed thumb impression, without anything more, cannot be accepted as a valid finding that the disputed signature is of the person who has put the admitted thumb impression. Where the Court finds that the disputed finger impression and admitted thumb impression are clear and where the Court is in a position to identify the characteristics of fingerprints, the Court may record a finding on comparison, even in the absence of an expert’s opinion. But where the disputed thumb impression is smudgy, vague or very light, the Court should not hazard a guess by a casual perusal.” 14. In Ajay Kumar parmar v. State of Rajasthan4 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 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 4 (2012 12 SCC 406 11 VS,J C.R.P.No.141 of 2025 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. Therefore, by perusing the dicta in the above decisions it can be said that the Courts shall normally seek expert opinion when they are posed with a situation where they have to compare admitted and 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 and as well as when the party does not dispute the signature at the initial stage, either by filing a written statement. In the present case, the petitioner/defendant has filed a written statement duly disputing his signature on the promissory note dated 26.09.2022. 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 light of the aforesaid discussion, coming to the facts of the present case, as discussed above, the petitioner/defendant laid foundation by contending in the written statement that the suit promissory note was forged one. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner no prejudice 12 VS,J C.R.P.No.141 of 2025 would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff in obtaining expert opinion by sending Ex.A1 -Promissory note dated 26.09.2022. 17. In the lights of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 04.12.2024 in I.A.No.819 of 2024 in O.S.No.428 of 2023 passed by learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddutur, is set aside. The trial Court shall send Ex.A1-Promissory note dated 26.09.2022 to the handwriting expert to compare the signatures of the defendant on Ex.A1-Promissory note with the admitted signatures of defendant available on the Vakalath, Written Statement and to be obtained in open Court for giving opinion as to its genuineness for proper adjudication of the matter. 18. The present Civil Revision Petition is accordingly 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 :18.09.2025. KGR