1 APHC010348412025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1738 OF 2025 Between: 1. MANDYAM MUNEMMA, W/O. MANDYAM JAYARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO.3- 19, DURGASAMUDRAM VILLAGE AND POST, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. A JANARDHAN, S/o. A.Balasubramanyam Reddy, aged about 42 years, R/o D.No.1-1, Bhagyanagaram, Durgasamudram post, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. M HEMALATHA 2 The Court made the following ORDER: Aggrieved by the Order dated 20.03.2025 in I.A.No.719 of 2023 in O.S.No.40 of 2022, on the file of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tirupati, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2) Heard Mr.K. Narsireddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner’s counsel. Also heard Ms. Neelima Mantripragada, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material on record. 3) The respondent herein filed the above referred suit for recovery of the suit amount on the foot of a promissory note, stated to have been executed by the petitioner herein. In the suit, the petitioner herein / defendant filed a written statement and it was inter alia pleaded that the suit pronote is fabricated, created by forging the signature of the defendant. Seeking to send Ex.A1 promissory note to handwriting expert for comparison of the petitioner / defendant’s signature, age of the signature contained in the said promissory note with the signatures to be taken in the open court for opinion, the defendant / revision petitioner filed the above said I.A. 4) Mr. K. Narsireddy, learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions to impress upon the Court that the rejection of the said 3 application is vitiated by material irregularities and failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the Trial Court in a correct perspective. He submits that in the light of the specific plea of forgery, the learned Trial Court ought to have sent the suit pronote for opinion of expert, which would be helpful in arriving at just conclusion by the Court. He submits that an application seeking opinion of expert can be filed at any stage of the suit, and the opinion of the learned Trial Court to the effect that the application in question was not filed at the earliest point of time and no explanation is forthcoming in this regard is not tenable. He also submits that the learned Trial Court went wrong in not appreciating the relevant decisions, which supports the case of the petitioner with regard to sending the document for opinion of the expert for comparison with the signatures of the parties. Making the said submissions, learned counsel seeks to set aside the order under challenge and to allow the I.A. in question. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent made submissions to sustain the order passed in the above said I.A. She submits that the learned trial Court had recorded cogent reasons, referred to the relevant judgments and there is no illegality or perversity in the order under challenge. She accordingly prays for dismissal of the revision petition. 4 6) On appreciation of the rival contentions, the only point that arises for consideration is “Whether the order under challenge is liable to be interfered with, in the facts and circumstances of the case?” 7) At the outset, as noted above, the application in question was filed for sending the suit pronote for comparison of the petitioner / defendant’s signatures with that of her admitted signatures to be taken by the Court for expert opinion. It is not as if the petitioner is seeking comparison of her signatures on the suit pronote with the signatures on any contemporaneous documents. Be that as it may. 8) The learned Trial Court examined the relief sought for by the petitioner / defendant exhaustively by referring to the relevant judgments. The learned Trial Judge has taken note of the legal position that the signatures of the parties on vakalath, pleadings or signatures obtained in the open Court cannot be considered as standard signatures (see P.Padmanabhaiah Vs. G. Srinivasa Rao1 & C.R.P.No.67 of 2022, dated 16.03.2022). The observation of the learned Trial Court, however, to the effect that the application in question was not filed at the earliest point of time is not tenable. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no 1 2017 (1) ALT 710 5 bar for filing of the same even at the stage of hearing of the suit. Be that as it may. 9) The learned Trial Court appreciated the matter with reference to the judgments in P.Padmanabhaiah case, referred to supra and Kambala Nageswara Rao vs Kesana Balakrishna2; and arrived at conclusion that the relief sought for cannot be granted. The order of the learned Trial Court is well articulated, based on the legal position and contains valid reasons. Therefore, this Court see no reason to take a different view or grounds to interfere with the order under challenge. Therefore, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner are rejected and the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. 10) Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date: 07.11.2025 Ssv 2 2014 (1) ALT 636 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1738 of 2025 Date: 07.11.2025 Ssv