APHC010263112024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Between: 1. P. JAYAMMA REDDY,, W/O MOPA REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/O PLOT NO. 326, 8TH BLOCK, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE. 1. V NARASIMHA REDDY, S/o. Papi Hindu, R/o Satya Sai Apartments, Raghavendra Nagar, Kallur, Kurnool District Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, pleased to allow the Revision Petition, set aside the Order in I.A.No.12 of 2024 in O.S.No.106 of 2017 dated 08.05.2024, passed by the Learned Family cum IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, allow I.A.No.12 of 2024 in O.S.No.106 of 2017 on the file of the Learned Family cum IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, and pass 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S No. 106 of 2017 on the file of Hon’ble Family cum IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BUGULU SREETEJA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. G SRAVAN KUMAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1267/2024 P. JAYAMMA REDDY,, W/O MOPA REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/O PLOT NO. 326, 8TH BLOCK, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE. ...PETITIONER AND V NARASIMHA REDDY, S/o. Papi Reddy, Aged about 63 Years, Hindu, R/o Satya Sai Apartments, Raghavendra Nagar, Kallur, ...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 to allow the Revision Petition, set aside the Order in I.A.No.12 of 2024 in O.S.No.106 of 2017 dated 08.05.2024, passed by the Learned Family cum IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, allow I.A.No.12 of 2024 in 106 of 2017 on the file of the Learned Family cum IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, and pass 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S No. 106 of 2017 on the file of Hon’ble Family cum IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: BUGULU SREETEJA Counsel for the Respondent: G SRAVAN KUMAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI P. JAYAMMA REDDY,, W/O MOPA REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/O PLOT NO. 326, 8TH BLOCK, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE. ...PETITIONER Reddy, Aged about 63 Years, Hindu, R/o Satya Sai Apartments, Raghavendra Nagar, Kallur, ...RESPONDENT praying that in the High Court may be to allow the Revision Petition, set aside the Order in I.A.No.12 of 2024 in O.S.No.106 of 2017 dated 08.05.2024, passed by the Learned Family cum IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, allow I.A.No.12 of 2024 in 106 of 2017 on the file of the Learned Family cum IV Addl. District and Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S No. 106 of 2017 on the file of Hon’ble Family cum IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool and to pass 2 The Court made the following order: Questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 08.05.2024 passed in Interlocutory Application No.12 of 2024 in Original Suit No.106 of 2017 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool, the present Civil Revision petition is filed. 2. The petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.106 of 2017 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool. 3. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed O.S.No.106 of 2017 seeking recovery of the suit amount based on a promissory note. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement denying the borrowing of the amount. Subsequently, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.12 of 2024 under Order XXVI Rule 10 (a) C.P.C read with Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking to send the Ex.A1-suit promissory note along with Ex.B1-sale deed dated 13.10.2017 and her Passport and PAN Card to the Director, Forensic Sciences, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, Telangana for comparison of her signatures and for expert opinion. (ii) The respondent/plaintiff filed counter opposing the said application contending that the defendant, who was examined as D.W.1, had denied the signature in written statement and vakalat, which clearly goes to show that there is no written statement on behalf of defendant. When there is no denial 3 of plaint pleadings, there is no need of third party opinion. Hence, prayed to dismiss the application. (iii) The Court below, vide order dated 08.05.2024, dismissed the application on the ground that the documents relied by the petitioner for comparison were not suitable for examination by the expert and except those documents, no other admitted signatures were produced by the petitioner for the purpose of comparison, hence, sending Ex.A1 for comparison would serve no useful purpose, hence, no useful purpose would be served. Assailing the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4. Heard Sri Patil Yugandhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision and contents of the affidavit filed in support of Interlocutory Application filed before the Court below, contended that the petitioner did not borrow any amount from the respondent/plaintiff and the respondent has fabricated Ex.A1 with the help of P.W.2 and others and filed the suit. He further submitted that since the petitioner was not party to Ex.A1 and hence, she wants to send Ex.A1 promissory note to the Hand Writing Expert for comparison and opinion. He further submitted that the Court below erred in observing that the signatures in passport and Pan card are digitally signed and those signatures are not contemporary for the reason that the signatures in the above said documents are not digital signatures, but those 4 signatures are scanned and printed on the documents. The Court below ought to have noticed that Ex.B1 sale deed, which is sought to be sent for comparison of its signature with that of signature in Ex.A1 was registered for different purpose and is not related in the period of pending suit for the reasons that the petitioner has come on record in the year 2021 after receiving notices from the Court in E.P and then the ex parte order was set aside and it was an afterthought. He further contended that the efforts made by the petitioner to show his bona fides may not be discarded. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent in the Interlocutory Application before the Court below, contended that the defendant was examined as D.W.1 and she denied the signature in vakalatnama stands in the name of counsel and she also denied the signature in the written statement, which clearly goes to show that no written statement on behalf of the defendant. When there is no proper denial of the plaint averments, there is no necessity to obtain a third-party expert opinion. 8. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 9. As could be seen from the material available on record, the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is based on Ex.A1 promissory note. The petitioner/defendant has categorically disputed the signature appearing on the 5 said document. Once the execution of the promissory note and the signature thereon are specifically denied, the question whether the signature on the document belongs to the defendant becomes a material issue for adjudication in the suit. In such circumstances, obtaining an expert opinion by sending the disputed document along with admitted signatures for comparison would assist the Court in arriving at a just conclusion. The opinion of the handwriting expert, though not conclusive, is a relevant piece of evidence under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. 10. The Court below dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the signatures in the Passport and PAN card are digital signatures and therefore not suitable for comparison. However, the petitioner has also relied upon Ex.B1 sale deed dated 13.10.2017, which contains her signatures. Whether the signatures in the passport and PAN card are suitable or not, can be left to the expert to examine. The Court below ought not to have rejected the request at the threshold when the very execution of the promissory note is in dispute. 11. When the signature on a document, which is the basis of the suit, is disputed, the Court should normally allow the parties to obtain an expert opinion, as it will help the Court in deciding the case properly. If such examination is not allowed, it may cause prejudice to the party who is disputing the document. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the Court below was not justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. 6 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 08.05.2024 passed in Interlocutory Application No.12 of 2024 in Original Suit No.106 of 2017 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool, is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.12 of 2024 stands allowed. The Court below is directed to send Ex.A1 promissory note, along with signatures obtained in open Court, Written Statement, Vakalat including Ex.B1 sale deed and other relevant documents, to the Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, for comparison of signatures and for obtaining expert opinion. The Court below shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the expert report is received at the earliest. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 19.02.2026 MP 7 312 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:1267 of 2024 Date: 19.02.2026 MP