IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE IA PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 460 OF 2020 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, filed against the Order passed in lA No. 1284 of 2018 in OS No. 414 of 2014, dated 22.11.2019 on the file of court of the Learned I Additional District Judge Guntur. Between: Suryadevara Narayana Rao, S/o. Late Venkatappaiah, aged 70 years, H/o. Somavaram Village, Wyra Mandal, Khammam District. ...PETITIONER / PETITIONER / DEFENDANT AND Thota Rajani Kanth, S/o. Vijaya Ram, aged 41 years, Occ- Business, R/o. D. No. 4-3-109, 3'"'^ Lane, Ramana pet, Koretipadu, Guntur City, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT/ PLAINTIFF lA NO: 2 OF 2020 t Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stat^edrrh the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be ptea^d to extend the interim order dt 19-02-2020 passed in lA. 1/2020 in CRP 460/2020 in the interest of justice. A *■ * Counsel for the Petitioners : SMT NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondents : NONE APPEARED The Court made the following ORDER : 1 APHC010065052020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY null RFVISION PETITION NO: 460/2020 Between; Suryadevara Narayana Rao ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT Thota Rajani Kanth Counsel for the Petitioner; 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHl Counsel for the Respondent; 1. The Court made the following order; 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.460 OF 2020 ORDER; This Civil Revision Petition filed questioning the order, dated 22.11.2019 passed in I.A.No.1284 of 2018 in O.S.No.414 of 2014 on the file the I Additional District Judge, at Guntur, in rejecting the application of the petitioner to send Ex.A1-promissory note to Forensic Science Laboratory, Red Hills, Hyderabad, with specimen signatures available in the banks and office of Sub Registrar etc., for comparison. The petitioner is the defendant. The suit was filed for recovery of amount on the basis of a promissory note said to have been executed by the petitioner on 03.09.2012. The petitioner filed a written statement disputing the claim. 2. While so, the petitioner filed the above I.A. to compare the suit promissory note with his signatures available at Andhra Bank, Wyra Branch, Khammam District, A.P.Grameena Vikas Bank, Brahmanapaili-Agraharam Branch, Wyra & Wyra Branch, Khammam District and Office of Sub-Registrar (Assurances), Wyra (v) & Mandal, Khammam District. On filing said application, the trial court in I.A.No.874 of 2019, had issued summons for production of the documents mentioned by the petitioner in the application. The said documents were produced and the admitted signatures of the defendBPrte on the summoned documents were in English. Whereas, the 3. 3 signatures on the suit promissory note were in Telugu for which reason, the trial court rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that there are comparable signatures of the petitioner for sending to expert opinion. Hence, the present C.R.P. is filed. no Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though, the summoned documents are in English language, they can be compared with the signatures of the petitioner, which are in Telugu language on suit promissory note. A judgment of this Court in C.R.P.No.1482 of 2023 was relied upon by the petitioner to that effect to support his submission. This Court, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner had doubted the possibilities of comparison of disputed Telugu signatures with admitted English signatures and had called for a report from the trial court in C.R.P.No.1482 of 2023 i.e.. Special Judge, Ongole, FAC-II Additional District Judge, Ongole to know whether any expert opinion was given. Upon which direction, the said court had submitted its report on 30.12.2024 stating that the expert had returned without giving opinion for want of extensive admitted signatures. 5. In such facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there is scientific possibility to compare a Telugu signature with a English signature and the reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment referred supra, may not help as in that suit only, the expert had returned without giving any opinion 6. no 4 for want of comparable signatures. Therefore, this court does not find any error in the order of the trial court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. 7. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SDI- N.NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Learned I Additional District Judge Guntur, Guntur District. 2. One CC to Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi Advocate [OPUC] 3. THREE CD COPIES psr TAG HIGH COURT DATED:02/01/2025 ORDER CRP.No.460 of 2020 * 0 7 MAR 2025 OF O m 09 . ^ . Current Section . ^ DISMISSING THE CRP