APHC010046822025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI L'S THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.237 of 2025 & 29n« nf CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.237 of 2Q2fi Pstition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order made in I.A.No.791 of 2024 in O.S.No.101 of 2016, dated 20.12.2024, on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Markapur, Prakasam District. Between; 2024 Gumma Papa Rao, S/o Guravaiah, Aged 62 years, R/o Sangatigunta, Ponnur Road, Guntur City, Guntur District. ...Petitioner/Defendant in O.S.No.101 of 2016 AND Natukula Srinivasa Rao, S/o Late Ramaswamy, Aged 66 Upstairs Krishna Dormitory, Old Government Hospital Center, Cumbum Road, Markapur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District. ...Respondent/Plaintiff in O.S.No.101 of 2016 years, R/o lA NO; 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court pleased to grant interim stay all further proceedings in the suit bearing O.S.No.101 of 2016, on the file of Court of Senior Civil Judge Court, may be Markapur, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the present Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri G V Shivaji Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Turaga Sai Surya APHC010533982024 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2938 of 2024 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order made in I.A.No.125 of 2022 in I.A.No.153 of 2021 in O.S.No.101 of 2016, dated 26.02.2024, on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Markapur, Prakasam District. Between; Gumma Papa Rao, S/o Guravaiah, Aged 62 years, R/o Sangatigunta, Ponnur Road, Guntur City, Guntur District. ...Petitioner/Defendant in O.S.No.101 of 2016 AND Natukula Srinivasa Rao, S/o Late Ramaswamy, Aged 66 years, R/o Upstairs Krishna Dormitory, Old Government Hospital Center, Cumbum Road, Markapur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District. ...Respondent/Plaintiff in O.S.No.101 of 2016 lA NO; 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim stay all further proceedings in the suit bearing O.S.No.101 of 2016, on the file of Court of Senior Civil Judge Court, Markapur, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the Petition. present Civil Revision Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri G V Shivaji Counsel for the Respondent : None Appeared The Court made the following order: m APHC010046822025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] L THURSDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 237/2025 & 2938/2024 Between: 1.GUMMA PAPA RAO, S/0 GURAVAiAH, AGED 62 YEARS, R/0 SANGATIGUNTA, PONNUR ROAD, GUNTUR CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.NATUKULA SRINIVASA RAO, S/o Late Ramaswamy, Aged 66 years, R/o Upstairs Krishna Dormitory, Old Government Hospital Center, Cumbum Road, Markapur Town and Mandal, Prakasam 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 topleased to call for the records relating to the impugned order made in I.A.No.791 of 2024 in O.S.No.101 of 2016, dt 20.12.2024, on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Markapur, Prakasam District, and set aside the same by allowing the subject I.A. filed by petitioner in the interest of justice and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 2 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 grant interim stay all further proceedings in the suit bearing O.S.No.101 of 2016, on the file of Learned Court of Senior Civil Judge Court, Markapur, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the present Civil Revision Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.G VSHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondent: 1.TURAGA SAI SURYA 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CRP Nos.237 of 2025 & 2938 of 2024 As both the revision petitions are arising out of suit in OS No.101 of 2016, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The present revision petition is filed aggrieved by order dated 20.12.2024, passed in lA No.791/2024 in OS No.101/2016 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Markapur. The petitioner is defendant in the suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of amount of Rs.9,47,375/-, based on promissory note dated 09.01.2014, alleged to have been executed by the petitioner/defendant. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that, the respondent filed the suit by forging the signature of the petitioner in the suit promissory note dated 09.01.2014. He specifically pleaded in the written statement stating that, the signature on the suit pro-note does not belong to him. It is further stated that, he filed an application vide lA No.153 of 2021, seeking to send the suit pro note along with his admitted signatures to the handwriting expert, in which a counter affidavit filed by the respondent he has no objection to send the same with contemporary signatures for 4 examination of handwriting expert. The said application was allowed and the suit pro-note along with the admitted signatures of the petitioners on Ex.C2 original RC No. 107/2012-B, dated 17.01.2014, were sent to the experts opinion, but the handwriting expert APFSL Mangalagiri, returned the document by letter dated 23.09.2024, with a request to send the same with some more extensive admitted standard signatures of the petitioner around the contemporary period 2014 for the purpose of comparison. In view of the same, the petitioner filed the present application seeking to cause production of the documents of PSCC, Poll Center and Vidhyut Bhavan, Sangadigunta Muta Welfare Society, Registration No.171/2016 dated 19.05.2016, in which the signatures of the petitioner are available in the Sub-Registrar Office, Guntur, and send the same along with the suit pro-note to handwriting expert for comparison. A counter affidavit is filed stating that, the document proposed to send for comparison is dated 19.05.2016, which cannot be compared with suit pro-note inasmuch as the same 4. was executed on 09.01.2014 and therefore it is not possible to compare the same in view of the fact that there is a gap of two years between the two documents. It is further stated that, the 5 present application is filed only to drag on the matter without proceeding with the suit and there are no bonafides on the part of the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the application. Upon hearing the parties, the trial court dismissed the said' 5. application on the ground that, the document sought to cause production is of the year 2016 and the suit pro-note is dated 19.01.2014, as such no purpose would be served even if it is sent for comparison as the same is not contemporary document. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for 6. respondent. 7. Perused the material available on record. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the finding of the trial court is contrary to the order passed by the full bench of this Court and placed reliance on order dated 18.12.2015 passed in CRP Nos.1500 of 2010 and batch whereunder it was held that; It is essentially within the judicious discretion of this Court, depending on the individual facts and circumstance of the case before it, to seek or not to seek expert opinion as to the comparison of the disputed handwriting/signature handwriting/signature under Section 45 of the Indian with the admitted 6 evidence Act, 1872. The Court is however not barred from sending the disputed handwriting/signature for comparison to an expert merely because the time gap between the admitted handwriting/signature and the disputed handwriting/signature is long. The Court must however Endeavour to impress upon the petitioning party that comparison of disputed handwritings/signatures with admitted/signatures, separated by a time lag of 2 to 3 years, would be desirable so as to facilitate expert comparison in accordance with satisfactory standards. That being said there can be no hard and fast rule about this aspect and it would be ultimately be for expert concern to voice his conclusion as to whether the disputed handwriting/signature and the admitted handwriting/signature are capable of comparison for a viable expert opinion. .9. He would further submit that, following the ratio laid down in the said order, this Court passed a similar order in CRP No. 1598 of 2022 on 22.11.2022. He further argued that, in view of the same, order impugned is liable to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel the respondent would submit that, the present application is filed only to drag on the proceedings. He would further submit that though the original 7 m registered document dated 19.05.2016 which is caused for production is available with the petitioner, for the reasons best known to him he did not file the same at the relevant point of time.. 11. it is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed lA No. 153 of 2021 under Section 45 of Evidence Act to send the suit pro-note along with the signature on Ex.C2 original RC.No. 107/2020/2012- B dated 17.01.2014 and the same was allowed. Thereafter by letter dated 23.09.2024, the expert requested the court to send some more extensive admitted standard signatures of the petitioner. On perusal of the record it is clear that immediately the present application is filed by the petitioner. Though the respondent contended that the present application is filed only to drag on the suit proceedings, on a reading of the counter affidavit, it is clear that the respondent has stated that the petitioner is at liberty to produce the standard contemporary signatures pertaining to 2014 only but not 2016. From the above it is clear that the respondent has no objection if contemporaneous signatures are sent for opinion of the expert along with the suit pro note. 8 12. Apart from the same, the finding of the trial court that, the document now sought to be sent is not contemporary cannot be sustained in view of the order passed in full bench of this Court. In view of the ratio laid down in the order passed by the full bench of this court, the impugned order is set aside, and the interlocutory application vide lA No.791 of 2024 is ordered. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. 13. In CRP No.2938 of 2024, the petitioner filed application vide IA No. 125 of 2022 in OS No. 101 of 2016 to direct the manager, state bank of Hyderabad, Etukuru road, Guntur to send the cheques mentioned in the affidavit for comparison and also for causing production of the said cheques which contain the signature of the petitioner/defendant. It is further stated that the said cheques belong to the Smt. Bala Sandhya proprietor of Sri .Balaji Constructions and Suppliers. After hearing the parties, the said application was dismissed by order dated 26.02.2024. Questioning the same, the present revision petition is filed. 14. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent. 15. Perused the material available on record. 9 On a reading of the impugned order it is clear that the cheques mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the application, belong to Smt. Bala Sandhya, proprietor of Sri Balaji Constructions and Suppliers, Guntur. It is the case of the petitioner that on the reverse of the said cheques the petitioner used to sign whenever amount is drawn on the instructions of the^ proprietor of the petitioner. 16. On further perusal of the impugned order the trial court rightly dismissed the said application by observing that the said not issued by the petitioner and therefore the 17. cheques were question of sending the said cheques for comparison cannot be allowed inasmuch as the same belong to third party. This court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR closed. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Markapur, Prakasam District. 2. Cne CC to Sri G V Shivaji, Advocate [GPUC] 3. Cne CC to Sri Turaga Sai Surya, Advocate [GPUC] 4. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:17/07/2025 COMMON ORDER CRP Nos. 237 of 2025 & 2938 of 2024 2 ^ JUL 2025 jl' ^^sCironlSwIkaiXit'^ ALLOWING THE CRP No.237 of 2025 AND DISMISSING THE CRP No.2938 of 2024