1 APHC010529482024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2948/2024 Between: 1. PEDASANAGANTI SUBBALAKSHMI, W/O LATE CHIRANJIVARAO, HINDU, HOUSE WIFE, AGE 75 YEARS. DOOR NO.2-42, KADIYAPU SAVARAM, KADIYAM MANDAL. 2. PEDASANAGANTI VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA,, S/O LATE CHIRANJIVARAO, AGE 56 YEARS, PUROHIT, KADIYAPU SAVARAM, KADIYAM MANDAL ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. BATHINA CHAKRAM, S/o late Subbarao, Age 72 years. Door No.2- 108, Pallapuveedhi, Wirava, Pithapuram Mandal ...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 tomay be pleased to allow the above C.R.P by set aside the order and decree passed in I.A.No 650 of 2024 in O.S No. 24 of 2021 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, and pass such 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 ay be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 24 of 2021 the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Pithapuram, East Godavari and pass such 2 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. T N M RANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. T V JAGGI REDDY The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners/defendants challenging the order dated 09.09.2024passed in I.A.No.650 of 2024 in O.S.No.24 of 2021 on the file of Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, East Godavari, whereby the trial Court dismissed the said application filed by the petitioners/defendants for sending the suit promissory note to handwriting expert. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit before the Court below for recovery of money basing on a promissory note. The petitioners/defendants filed their written statement stating that the alleged transaction did not take place at all in between the respondent/plaintiff and the petitioners/defendants. Thereafter, the petitioners/defendants filed I.A.No.650 of 2024 in O.S.No.24 of 2021, under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, with a plea to send the suit promissory note (Ex.A.1) to ‗the Government hand writing expert, A.P. Forensic Science Laboratory (A.P.F.S.L), Tech tower, Mangalagiri, Vaddeswaram‘ to ascertain the age of the ink between the signatures of the defendants on revenue stamp and other writings on the promissory note including the signatures of attestors and scribe. The Court below, having observed that as the defendant No.2/petitioner No.2 had admitted his signature on the promissory note (Ex.A.1), sending the said promissory note to an expert for opinion would serve no purpose and accordingly, dismissed the application filed by the petitioners/defendants vide 4 order dated 09.09.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. 3. When the petition came up for admission on 25.04.2025 this Court has passed the following order: ―…It is made clear that the suit proceedings shall go on, but the same shall not be concluded till the next date of hearing.‖ 4. Heard Mr. T.N.M. Ranga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. A. Syam Sundar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the suit promissory note is forged document, as such, I.A.No.650 of 2024 was filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with a plea to send the promissory note (Ex.A1) to the handwriting expert for comparing disputed signatures with admitted signatures. But, the Court below, in the impugned order wrongly came to the conclusion that sending the promissory note to the expert for opinion would not serve any purpose. As such, learned counsel requested to allow the present petition. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned order passed by the Court below in all aspects and further submitted that the opinion of handwriting expert is not necessary and that the petitioners have filed the application before the Court below, only to drag on the proceedings. Hence, requested to dismiss the present petition. 5 7. As the application filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 09.09.2024, this Court feels it 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 impressions] 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. The opinions of experts on the question whether the two documents were written by the same person or by different persons, are relevant." 6 "73. Comparison of signature, 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." 9. 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 hand writing. 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. 7 10. In Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan1, 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 anyother 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 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." 11. It can be understood from the above that the Courts shall normally seek expert opinion when they are posed with a situation where they have to 1 (2012) 12 SCC 406 8 compare admitted signatures with 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. 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. 12. In the case on hand, as discussed above, the petitioners herein - defendants laid foundation in the written statement by contending that the suit promissory note was forged one. Admittedly, the object and purport of Section 45 of the Evidence Act is to be considered by the trial Court and this Court. When there is specific denial by the petitioners - defendants that their signature were forged, it is not safe for the trial Court to come to a conclusion that no purpose would be served in sending the suit promissory note to a handwriting expert for opinion. The opinion of a handwriting expert shall not be brushed aside as useless. The Court cannot act as an expert for comparing signatures or handwriting by using its own eyes and must refrain from playing the role of an expert. The trial Court ought not to have dismissed the application filed by the petitioners on the ground that no purpose would be served if the suit promissory note is sent to a handwriting expert for opinion. The said finding is contrary to the object and purport of Section - 45 of the Evidence Act. As such, this Court is of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff in obtaining expert opinion by sending Ex.A1 - promissory note. 9 13. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 09.09.2024 in I.A.No.650 of 2024 in O.S.No.24 of 2021 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, East Godavari is set-aside. 14. In view of the same, the trial Court shall send Ex.A1 – promissory note to the hand-writing expert to compare the signatures of the defendants on Ex.A1 - promissory note with the admitted signatures of defendant to be obtained in Open Court for giving opinion as to its genuineness for proper adjudication of the matter. The said process shall be completed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. Accordingly, with the above direction, this revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:31.10.2025 Gss