APHC010193482024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 890/2024 Between: 1. A.FAYAZ (AKS),, S/O KHASIMSAB, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, VEGETABLE COMMISSION AGENT, GANDHI VEGETABLE MARKET, OLD TOWN, ANANTHAPURAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. CHEETHIRALA MURALIDHAR, S/o Bala Subramanyam, aged about 44 Years, Hindu, Business, 101, Aditya Enclave, Y.M.R. Colony, Proddatur Town, 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 toThe Address of the respondent for the purpose of issue of notice and other processes etc., is the same as shown above in the cause title of this revision Petition. The Petitioners/ petitioners/ Defendants filed AGGRIEVED the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, dated, 29-11-2023 dismissed the I.A.No.946 of 2023 in O.S.No.292/2018, the Civil Revision Petition is filed on the following amongst other 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 may be please to grant stay of all the further proceedings in O.S. No 2 VS,J C.R.P.No.890 of 2024 292/2018 on the file of Court of the senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, Pending disposal of the Civil Revision petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. INENI VENKATA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 3 VS,J C.R.P.No.890 of 2024 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 29.11.2023 passed in I.A.No.946 of 2023 in O.S.No.292 of 2018 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.292 of 2018 against the petitioner herein/defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,67,380/- together with future interest, basing on a promissory note dated 02.07.2015. 3. In the said suit, the petitioner/defendant filed a written statement, duly stating that the defendant never executed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and that the alleged suit promissory note was created and fabricated with forged signatures. Thereafter, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.946 of 2023 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of CPC, requesting the trial Court to send the suit promissory note to a Government handwriting expert to compare the signatures with the admitted signatures and to give an opinion with regard to the same. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court. 4. Challenging the said order, the present revision petition is filed on the ground that the expert opinion sought by the petitioner/defendant is essential, as the signature available on the suit promissory note belongs to him, but there is a material alteration in the month column of the alleged suit promissory note. Specifically, the month column of the suit promissory note is altered as “7” in the place of “1”. 4 VS,J C.R.P.No.890 of 2024 5. Heard Mr.I.Venkata Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notice was served on the respondent/plaintiff, it has not yet been returned. 6. On perusal of the impugned order passed in I.A.No.946 of 2023, it can be observed that the trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner/defendant on the sole ground that the disputed signatures can be compared only with the admitted signatures that are contemporaneous, and not with admitted signatures obtained subsequent to the date of the disputed signature. By the lapse of time, there may be some difference in the signature of a person. 7. However, in the present case, the objection raised by the petitioner is only regarding the alleged alteration in the column of the month as „7‟ in the place of „1‟. In such circumstances, the proposition relied upon by the trial Court is not applicable. The said promissory note can be sent for expert opinion to determine whether the promissory note has been altered, specifically whether there is an alteration of „7‟ in the place of „1‟ in the month column. In the present case, the petitioner is not disputing his signatures, but is disputing only the alteration in the month column. 8. In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 29.11.2023 in I.A.No.946 of 2023 in O.S.No.292 of 2018 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur. The trial Court is directed to send the suit promissory note to a Government handwriting expert for an opinion specifically on the alleged alteration in the month column. No costs. 5 VS,J C.R.P.No.890 of 2024 Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 04.12.2025 KGR