THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs:1365 and 1399 of 2026 COMMON ORDER: Since the subject revision petitions arise out of a common order dated 10.02.2026, this Court is inclined to decide these revision petitions by way of a common order. 2. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the common order dated 10.02.2026 passed in I.A.Nos. 730 and 731 of 2025 in O.S.No.380 of 2018 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the Suit and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. For convenience of the Court, the parties herein are referred as arrayed in the Suit. 5. The case of the petitioner/ defendant is that the respondent/plaintiff filed a Suit against the defendant by fabricating her signatures on Ex.A1/suit promissory note dated 02.08.2015 with the help of her followers. It is further stated that the defendant’s signatures were rank forged and fabricated by the plaintiff. It is also submitted that the defendant 2 was examined as DW-1 in the Suit, the said fact was duly asserted before the Court. 6. The further case of the petitioner/ defendant is that it is necessary to send the disputed signatures of Ex.A1/suit promissory note dated 02.08.2015 with her admitted signatures on LIC Policy Bond No. 805070207 dated 27.03.2015 to the Handwriting Expert to get opinion regarding genuineness of the signature affixed on Ex.A1. Hence, it is necessary to call for the original LIC Policy Application No.805070207 and to send the same to the Handwriting Expert along with Ex.A1/Suit Promissory Note dated 02.08.2015. 7. It is further argued that plaintiff filed C.C.No.318 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Excise Court, Ongole, against the defendant’s husband under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In the said case, the husband of the defendant filed a petition vide Crl.M.P.No.4347/2023 to send the Original Promissory Note in O.S.No.380/2018 to the Handwriting Expert for comparison of the signatures of defendant. Further, the defendant’s husband also filed another petition vide Crl.M.P.No.4345/2923 under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Excise Court, Ongole, to send the Ex.D2 to Ex.D4 and Ex.D6 to the Handwriting Expert for comparison of signatures and handwriting on it with the signatures and handwriting of 3 Defendant, wherein, the Excise court was pleased to allow the same on 30.09.2024 directing the applicant therein to send the Ex.D2 to Ex.D4 and Ex.D6 for comparison of signatures of defendant, with her admitted documents of contemporary period, relating to the years 2014 and 2015 LIC Policy Bond No. 805070207 dated 27.03.2015 to the Expert, for examination of her signatures and handwriting. 8. Thereafter, the Handwriting Expert (FSL) i.e., Joint Director, APFSC, Mangalagiri, returned the said documents vide letter dated 26.11.2024 to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Excise Court, Ongole, with opinion that the standards received are exhibiting lot of variations among themselves and it is not possible to offer any opinion on the available standards and those documents are returned. Hence, the defendant filed I.A.Nos. 730 and 731 of 2021 seeking following reliefs: “I.A.No.730 of 2021 is filed by the defendant in the suit under Section 39 of Bharatiya Sakhsya Adhiniyam, 2023 and Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 requesting to send Ex.A1/ Suit Promissory Note dated 02.08.2015 to the Handwriting Expert for comparison of signatures of the petitioner/ defendant appearing on the disputed Ex.A1/ Suit Promissory Note dated 02.08.2025 with her admitted signatures on LIC Policy Bond No.805070207 dated 27.03.2015 of the petitioner which is of the relevant period. I.A.No.731 of 2025 is filed by the defendant in the Suit, under Order XVI Rule 5 and Section 151 of CPC, with a prayer to send for the Original LIC Policy Application dated 27.03.2015 from LIC Head 4 Office, Rajamahendravaram to the Hon’ble Court for comparision of her admitted signatures in the said application with the disputed signatures on Ex.A1/ Suit Promissory Note dated 02.08.2015 by Hand Writing Expert.” 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ defendant submits that the signatures in the subject promissory note which are the basis for claim of the plaintiff are rank forged and fabricated by the plaintiff. The defendant was examined as DW-1. Even in examination, the defendant prayed to send the disputed signature in respect of the promissory note for an expert opinion. Unless and until, the expert opinion is obtained regarding the disputed signatures of the defendant with the admitted signatures over above the document of the LIC policy issued in the year 2015 in favour of the defendant, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss. Learned counsel for the petitioner further asserts that the defendant is entitled to file petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 seeking for an expert opinion at any point of time before the date of rendering judgment by the trial court. In the instant case, the defendant filed the interlocutory applications after completion of the examination of the DW-1. Therefore, the interlocutory applications before the trial court are within the time and the same cannot be rejected on the ground that the expert opinion already rendered in respect of the signatures of the promissory notes as well as admitted signatures affixed at the LIC bond of the defendant, in C.C.No.318 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First 5 Class-cum-Excise Court, Ongole. She further submits that the subject CC was filed under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 basing upon the very same promissory note executed by the defendant and the rejection of the claim of the defendant in CC.No.318 of 2017 cannot operate as bar as per the civil proceedings. Therefore, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner is contrary to law and the orders of the Court below is liable to be set aside. 10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. 11. The trial court rightly observed that the present I.As.730 and 731 are filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as well as under order XVI Rule 5 calling for original record from the LIC Head Office, Rajamahendravaram for sending the same for comparison of the admitted signature of the said application with the disputed signature of the Ex.A1/ promissory note is nothing but inviting multiple expert opinions regarding the very same documents which were already suffered an expert opinion in C.C.No.318 of 2017. It is further observed that once the very same documents which were considered before the excise Court in C.C.No.318 of 2017 and referred for the expert opinion with the same admitted document of LIC policy bond of the defendant, where the expert referred its opinion as under: “The expert also gave opinion that the standards received are exhibiting lot of variations among themselves and it is not possible to 6 offer any opinion on the available standards and those documents returned.” Therefore unless the admitted signatures of the defendant is otherwise provided, the admitted signature of the very same document cannot be referred for expert opinion. It is not in dispute that the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.318 of 2017 are also between same parties and the promissory note as well as LIC policy bond of the defendant also very same documents, against which present IAs were filed. Therefore, on perusal of the order of the trial court, it is observed that the trial court rightly held that the defendant cannot seek for expert opinion basing on the very same documents which were already sent for an expert opinion in Criminal proceedings in respect of the very same documents and the said documents were already rejected by the expert for comparison. As such, the trial court rightly dismissed the applications of the defendant on the ground that the expert opinion cannot be invited basing upon very same documents since the same were already rejected. 12. Therefore the orders of the trial court is in accordance with law and do not suffer either perversity or bias and does not warrant any interference of this Court. However, the petitioner is at liberty to provide any other admitted signature of the petitioner within the contemporary period of the promissory note and to file appropriate petition for getting expert opinion. 7 13. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J Dated: 05.05.2026 NOTE: C.C by three (03) days (B/o) BSP 8 153 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs:1365 and 1399 of 2026 Dated: 05.05.2026 NOTE: C.C by three (03) days (B/o) BSP