APHC010434392019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH SATURDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Civil Revision C.R.P.No.1452 of 2025 Between: 1. Chandra Jayaram Naidu, S/o.late Munaswamy Naidu, Aged about 80 years, R/o.Kammapalli Village and Post, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Tirupati District. 2. Chandra Ramesh, S/o.Chandra Jayaram Naidu, Aged about 51 years, R/o.Kammapalli Village and Post, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Tirupati District. A.Krishna, S/o.Doraswamy Naidu, Aged about 45 years, R/o.Door No.3-117/1, Satyanarayana Puram, Jeev Tirupati, Tirupati District. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Kanderi Chethan Counsel for the Respondent(S): Mr.Pawan Kumar Malapati 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Civil Revision Petition Nos.1452, 1465 and 1477 of 2025 Chandra Jayaram Naidu, S/o.late Munaswamy Naidu, Aged about 80 years, R/o.Kammapalli Village and Post, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Tirupati District. S/o.Chandra Jayaram Naidu, Aged about 51 years, R/o.Kammapalli Village and Post, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Tirupati District. AND A.Krishna, S/o.Doraswamy Naidu, Aged about 45 years, 117/1, Satyanarayana Puram, Jeevakona, Tirupati, Tirupati District. Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): Mr.Pawan Kumar Malapati IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] SATURDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Petition Nos.1452, 1465 and 1477 of 2025 ...Petitioners …..Respondent 2 The Court made the following common order: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Pawan Kumar Malapati, learned counsel for the respondent. With their consent, these revision petitions are disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners who are the defendants in O.S.No.6 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tirupati, aggrieved by separate orders dated 09.05.2025 in I.A.Nos.408, 727 and 409 respectively, filed the present revision petitions. 3. The respondent / plaintiff filed the above mentioned suit against the petitioners / defendants seeking a decree for a sum of Rs.22,65,200/- with interest on the foot of a pronote dated 25.06.2017. The petitioners / defendants filed a written statement inter alia contending that the suit pronote is a fabricated, materially forged one and the suit is liable to be dismissed. When the suit is posted for evidence on the defendant’s side, the petitioners herein filed I.A.No.727 of 2024 under Order 8 Rule 14 (1) (A) of C.P.C., seeking leave to file a Registered Lease Deed executed by them in the year 2019. They filed I.A.No.409 of 2024 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the suit promissory note (Ex.A1) to the hand writing expert, F.S.L., Vijayawada to ascertain whether the signatures contained in the said document belong to the 2nd petitioner / defendant No.2. They filed a separate application I.A.No.408 of 2024 under Order 8 Rule 14 (1)(A) of C.P.C., seeking leave to the petitioners to 3 file a Registered Sale Deed executed on 26.04.2016. Opposing the said applications, the respondent / plaintiff filed separate counters. The Trial Court, considering the rival contentions, dismissed all the three I.As., by passing separate orders. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners / defendants made submissions with reference to the various grounds raised in the Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition and the same need not be discussed at length. Suffice to state that his main contention is that the learned Trial Court went wrong in holding that the documents i.e., Registered Sale Deed of the year 2016 and the Registered Leased Deed of the year 2019 cannot be treated as a contemporaneous documents and the same cannot be sent to the F.S.L., for comparison of the signatures on Ex.A1-Promissory Note stated to have been executed in the year 2017. He also submits that the observation / opinion of the learned Trial Court to the effect that the petitions in question were filed four years after the petitioners / defendants entered their appearance in the suit, is a factor to reject the applications is not sustainable. Making the said submissions and placing reliance on the judgment in Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad v. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu and others1 and a decision of a learned Judge in Manduva 1 2016 (2) ALT 248 (FB) 4 Hanumantha Rao v. Manduva Srinivasa Rao and Ors.,2 the learned counsel urges to set aside the impugned orders and allow the revision petitions. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent made submissions to sustain the orders under challenge. He submits that the applications in question are filed only with a view to protract the litigation and the learned Trial Court was right in dismissing the I.As., in the facts and circumstances of the case. He also submits that the learned Trial Court had assigned the cogent reasons and exercised its discretion in the correct perspective, that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel prays for dismissal of the revision petitions. 6. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the point that arises for adjudication is whether the impugned orders are liable to be set aside in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India? 7. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that it is the case of the petitioners / defendants that the suit pronote dated 25.06.2017 is fabricated and forged one. In order to substantiate their plea, they filed the applications referred to above, the details of which were already mentioned supra and the same came to be rejected, these revisions were filed. The impugned orders, in the light of the settled legal position are not sustainable. The learned Trial Court went wrong in 2 MANU/AP/0367/2025 5 making observations to the effect that the applications were not filed at the earliest stage. A Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Janachaitanya Housing Ltd., Ameerpet v. Divya Financiers3, had an occasion to answer the reference as to whether an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act filed for sending the signatures for comparison and expert opinion, can be entertained at the later stage, including when coming up for arguments after entire trial, as follows: “No time could be fixed for filing applications under Sec.45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the disputed signature or writings to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion and same shall be left open to the discretion of the Court; for exercising such discretion when exigencies so demand, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the each case.” 8. In Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad’s case referred to above, a Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh was examining the issue as to whether a Civil Court is barred from sending disputed handwriting / signature to hand writing expert, if the time gap between the admitted signature and disputed signature is very long. 9. Answering the said reference, the Hon’ble Full Bench at Para No.27 held as follows: “It is essentially within the judicious discretion of the Court, depending on the individual facts and circumstances of the case before it, to seek or not to seek expert opinion as to the comparison of the disputed handwriting / signature 3 2008 (3) ALT 409 6 with the admitted handwriting /signature under Section 45 of the Indian 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 handwritings/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.” 10. The Hon’ble Full Bench also upheld the view expressed by the Division Bench in Janachaitanya Housing Ltd., Ameerpet referred to supra. 11. Relying on Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad’s case referred to supra, a learned Judge in Manduva Hanumantha Rao’s case referred to supra, while opining that object of sending the document for expert opinion is to compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures which are in contemporaneous and there should not be any chance of changing the signature intentionally, set aside the order of the Trial Court rejecting the application to send the document for expert opinion. 12. The above said decisions are squarely applicable to the present fact situation. In fact, it is profitable to note that the Hon’ble Full Bench had discussed elaborately about the report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad in Para No.12 etc., of the judgment, including the contemporaneous nature of the documents. The finding of the learned Trial Court to the effect that 7 the documents in question cannot be treated as contemporaneous documents in the light of the Full Bench judgment is unsustainable. 13. Basing on the ratio in the above said decisions, the orders under challenge are liable to be set aside. At this stage, it may also be appropriate to mention that there is no dispute about the legal position in the judgments referred to, by the learned Trial Court in the orders passed in I.A.No.409 of 2024. It is also not in dispute that the evidence of an expert is not substantive piece of evidence. However, the signatures on the disputed document are sought to be compared with the signatures on a contemporaneous registered documents. The opinion of the expert would aid the Court to arrive at a just conclusion. Though, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the learned Trial Court was right in exercising discretion and rejecting the applications, as such no interference is warranted, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court failed to exercise its discretion in the right perspective and the orders under challenge are contrary to the legal position. 14. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the impugned orders are set aside and the I.As., in question are allowed. The learned Trial Court shall take appropriate steps for sending the documents in question for comparison of the signatures on the Ex.A1-Pronote and the opinion of the expert. 8 15. In the result, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, all pending applications shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA BLV Dt. 22.11.2025 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA C.R.P. Nos: 1452, 1465 and 1477 of 2025 Date: 22.11.2025 BLV 10