1 APHC010072082023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 465/2023 Between: Sri Velagasriramamurthy ...PETITIONER AND Sri Kolluri Srinivasa Rao ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KALLA TULASI DURGAMBA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.465 of 2023 ORDER: 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 11.10.2022 in I.A.No.445 of 2022 in O.S.No.75 of 2018 passed by the IX Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Kovvur. 2. The Petitioner is the Plaintiff. The suit was filed for recovery of money on the strength of a promissory note dated 08.10.2015 said to have been executed by the Defendant. After the evidence of the Plaintiff, the Defendant filed the present application seeking to send the suit promissory note dated 08.10.2015 to the Government Handwriting Expert, A.P. Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad for comparison of the disputed signature with the admitted signatures of the Defendant. The said application was allowed by the trial Court and the suit promissory note was ordered to be sent to the Expert, Forensic Science Laboratory, Amaravathi for comparison of the signature on Ex.A.1/promissory note with the admitted signatures of the Petitioner/Defendant on the Vakalat, Written Statement, summons and acknowledgment with the admitted signatures etc., including the documents filed by Petitioner along with the petition. 3. Heard M/s. Kalla Tulasidurgamba, learned counsel for the Petitioner. 4. This Court having heard the counsel for the Petitioner is of the opinion that the discretion exercised by the trial Court was for valid reasons and does not warrant any interference by this Court. The only issue under which this Court can interfere is the direction of the District Court to compare the signatures on Ex.A.1 promissory note with the signatures of the Defendant on the Vakalat, Written Statement, summons, acknowledgment etc., 3 5. The comparison of the promissory note that post suit documents i.e. Vakalat, Written Statement etc., cannot be sustained as they are held to be unsafe by this Court in Byalla Devadas vs. Sivapuram Rama Yogeswara Rao1. In view thereof, the direction of the District Court is modified by permitting the comparison of signatures of the Defendant on Ex.A.1 suit promissory note with any pre-suit contemporaneous signature of the Defendant. 6. Therefore, the order of the trial Court is set-aside to that extent and the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date:07.01.2025 IS 1 2022 SCC Online AP 2153 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.465 of 2023 Date: 07.01.2025 IS