APHC010045802023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 215/2023 Between: 1. VEERABOINA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O HANUMANTHAU, 47Y, OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O RAYAVARAM VILLAGE, MACHARLA POST AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. BOLAKA PRANAYA KUMAR, S/o Somaiah, 41y, R/o Rayavaram Village, Macharla Post amd Mandal, Palnadu District, A.P. ...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 tobeg to present the civil revision petition, aggrieved by the orders passed in I.A.No. 1507 of 2022 in O.S. No. 402 of 2019 dt. 16-10-2022 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge, Macharla, IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 pleased to stay of all further proceedings in I.A. 1507 of 2022 in OS 402 of 2019 dt. 16-12-2022 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 2 pleased to extend the interim orders granted earlier on 03.02.2023 pending disposal of the above C.R.P., and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G ELISHA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SRIHARI RAO YANDAPALLI The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff. The suit in O.S.No.402 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Macharla, filed for recovery of money based on suit promissory notes. 2. In the said suit, the petitioner/defendant got filed an application under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act and Section 151 of CPC, duly praying the Court to send Ex.A1 promissory note dated 21.09.2016 for expert opinion, for comparison of the signature on Ex.A2 endorsement with standard signature made before the Court, in order to elicit the truth. The said application was opposed by the respondent by filing counter denying the averments duly contending that the execution of the promissory note was admitted in the cross examination. The trial Court, after hearing both sides, passed the orders impugned dismissing the said petition. Feeling aggrieved, the present civil revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard Sri G.Elisha, learned counsel for the petitioner. No representation for respondent. 4. While reiterating the grounds of revision and the contents of the affidavit filed along with interlocutory application, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in order to overcome the limitation, the plaintiff made an endorsement part-payment on the suit pronote (Ex.A1) and thereafter filed the suit. The alleged endorsement on the other side of the pronote was not signed by the defendant, and therefore the signature on the endorsement on the back of Ex.A1 pronote has to be compared by sending the same to an expert. Accordingly, the application was made under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act 4 to send the document for expert opinion. The trial Court dismissed the application erroneously without assigning any reasons. Further, the trial Court failed to see that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if the document is sent for expert opinion. Though the report of the expert is not a conclusive proof, it would assist the Court in appreciating the evidence let in by the parties and in deciding the suit. As such, prayed to allow the civil revision petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 6. The case of the petitioner/defendant is that the plaintiff prepared part payment endorsement dated 30.06.2018 i.e., Ex.A2 on the back side of the suit pronote with the support of his close associates, to overcome the bar of limitation of suit promissory note and filed suit for getting wrongful gain from the petitioner/defendant. As such, part-payment endorsement, i.e., Ex.A2 dated 30.06.2018, is nothing but a forged one. To elicit the said fact that the part- payment endorsement was prepared by the plaintiff with support of his close associates, it is necessary to send the promissory note and its part payment endorsement, for comparison by an expert opinion. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that admitted facts need not be proved and that there is no point in sending Exs.A1 and A2 to handwriting expert to substantiate the contentions, and further observing that the present application was filed only to drag on the proceedings for some more time. 7. On perusal of the written statement, it shows that though the amounts were already paid under the pronotes, the plaintiff with an evil intention to grab money from the defendant, made endorsement of part-payment on the back side of the 5 promissory note dated 21.09.2016 and brought the suit promissory notes into existence is the contention of the defendant. The defendant has categorically denied about the part-payment endorsement on the back side of the pronote. The petitioner/defendant only asked to send Ex.A1 promissory note for expert, to compare the signature with that of the signature on Ex.A2 endorsement. Mere admitting execution of pronote cannot be a ground to deny sending Ex.A2, the part-payment endorsement on the promissory note, for expert opinion, particularly when the defendant has denied in the written statement about the part payment endorsement and taken a stand that it is a forged one. The order impugned of the trial Court is erroneous, as the trial Court failed to take into consideration the contents of the written statement that the part-payment endorsement on Ex.A1 which is Ex.A2 is a forged one. If the said document is sent for expert opinion, no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff. 8. As stated supra, the order passed by the trial Court is erroneous and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I.A.No.1507 of 2022 is allowed. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, I.A.1507 of 2022 is allowed. The trial Court shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the report is received at the earliest. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 09th February, 2026 JLV 6 67 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 215/2023 Date: 09th February, 2026 JLV