APHC010198322026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] TUESDAY, THE 15th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1124 OF 2026 Between: 1. PITHANI SRINIVASA RAO @ SRINU, S/O POLAYYA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.7-48, MADHAVARANANIPETA, TALLAREVU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNGARALA NAGABHUSHANAM, S/o Adinarayana, Aged about 40 years, R/o D.No. 1-60, R/o P.Mallavaram village, Tallarevu Mandal, Kakinada District, Erstwhile East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. K SUBRAHMANYAM 2 The Court made the following ORDER: The unsuccessful applicant/petitioner in I.A.No.90 of 2026 in O.S.No.162 of 2022 on the file of the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, filed the present Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 13.03.2026. 2) The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.162 of 2022 filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of suit amount of Rs.39,06,966/-, on the strength of promissory notes stated to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent herein. In the written statement pleas, inter alia that the suit promissory notes are rank forgery, that the signatures do not belong to defendant and he never singed the pronotes were taken. After cross-examination of the petitioner, he filed the application in question on 23.02.2026 seeking to summon one Mr.B.Sudhakar Reddy, Scientist, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, who pursuant to the orders in I.A.No.124 of 2023 gave his opinion with regard to the disputed signatures for comparison with the admitted signatures of the petitioner. Respondent herein filed counter and resisted the application, which came to be dismissed vide order impugned in the revision petition. 3) Heard Mr.A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for respondent. Perused the material on record. 3 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to impress upon the Court that the learned Trial Court went wrong in rejecting the application to summon the crucial witness/expert, who gave his opinion with regard to the signatures of the petitioner furnished for comparison with the disputed promissory notes. It is his contention that for the purpose of establishing that the comparison of signatures by the expert was not done scientifically and technically erroneous, examination of the said witness is essential. He submits that the learned Trial Court without examining the matter in the correct perspective and expressing the opinion that the signatures can be compared as provided under Section 78 of Bharathiya Sakshya Adinayam, dismissed the application in question, that the same is not sustainable. Making the said submissions, he seeks to allow the Revision Petition by setting aside the order under challenge. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent made submissions with reference to Memo dated 31.12.2025 filed by the petitioner/defendant in Trial Court. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant deposition in the cross-examination of petitioner/defendant. He submits that the only intention of the petitioner is to protract the litigation, despite the said Memo wherein he agreed to pay an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- in full and final settlement of the suit claim. He submits that there are no merits in the Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4 6) On appreciation of the rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration is “Whether the order under challenge warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the facts and circumstances of the case?” 7) At the outset, it may be appropriate to mention that there is no dispute that the petitioner herein filed a Memo dated 13.12.2025, wherein he categorically agreed to pay an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- in full and final settlement of the case and an amount of Rs.50,000/- was already paid. Though at one stage, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the said Memo was filed under coercion, no such averment was made in the affidavit filed in support of the above mentioned I.A. much less, in the present Revision. In fact, non-mentioning of the said aspect, which is crucial amounts to suppression of material fact. Be that as it may. In the cross-examination on 12.02.2026, which is prior to filing of the I.A., in question, petitioner categorically admitted about the compromise to pay Rs.25,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of entire suit claim and also payment of Rs.50,000/- on 17.09.2025 and that he did not fulfill the promise to pay balance amount of Rs.24,50,000/- on or before 16.12.2025. Further, it is also admitted that he sold his property in favour of his mother-in-law and sister of his wife three days after receipt of notice in attachment petition. 5 8) In the light of the above stated facts of the case, the order of the learned Trial Court cannot be found fault with. As contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, obviously the application is filed only with a view to protract the litigation. This Court see no illegality or perversity in the order under challenge warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The point is answered accordingly. 9) The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 10) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date:15.09.2026 Ssv Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1124 OF 2026 Date:15.09.2026 Ssv