APHC010401622025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 1974 AND 1977 OF 2025 C.R.P.No.1974/2025: Between: 1. TALLAPANENI VENKATA SIVA PRASAD, AGED 53 YRS, BUSINESS, R/O. VINJAMURIVARI VEEDHI 0PP. A.G. COLLEGE, BAPATLA ...PETITIONER AND 1. PERALI SREERAMA PRASAD, S/o. Sree Rama Murthy, aged 53 yrs. Business, R/o. No.8, Thambuchetty Road, Cox-Town, Bengaluru, ...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 to call for the record relating to and connected with the order Dt. 06- 05-2025 passed in I.A.NO. 344 of 2024 in O.S.No. 280 of 2016 on the file of Vl-Addl. District Judge (FTC), Bapatia dismissing the application filled under 151 CPC to send for the Vakalath and Ex.P1 to P3 in CC.No.329 of 2016 on the file of Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Bapatia and Vakalath and written statement in O.S.No. 24 of 2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bapatia for comparison of the signatures of the defendant with that of the suit agreement of sale Ex.AI in the interests of justice and allow the CRP and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 stay all further proceedings in O.S.No. 280 of 2016 on the file of Vl-Addl. 2 District Judge (FTC), Bapatla pending disposal of the CRP in the interests of justice and pass In C.R.P.No.1977 of 2025: Between: 1. TALLAPANENI VENKATA SIVA PRASAD, AGED 53 YRS, BUSINESS, R/O. VINJAMURIVARI VEEDHI 0PP. A.G. COLLEGE, BAPATIA ...PETITIONER AND 1. PERALI SREERAMA PRASAD, S/o. Sree Rama Murthy aged 53 yrs. Business, R/o. No.8, Thambuchetty Road, Cox-Town, Bengaluru, ...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 to call for the record relating to and connected with the order Dt. 06- 05-2025 passed in I.A.NO. 345 of 2024 in O.S.No. 280 of 2016 on the file of Vl-Addl. District Judge (FTC), Bapatia dismissing the application filled U/sec. 39 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam to send the suit agreement of sale Ex.AI along with enclosed memorandum of understanding Ex. A3 Dt.21-12-2011 and original cash receipt Dt.21-12-2011 admitted by DW.1 in his cross examination for comparing the signatures of the defendant (respondent herein) to AP Forensic Laboratory DGP office Tadepalli Guntur District in the interests of justice and allow the CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M CHALAPATI RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GANGARAJU JAGADEESACHANDRABABU NARASIMHA 3 The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.280 of 2016 before the VI Additional District Judge (FTC), Bapatla, for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 17.08.2014. The suit was resisted by the respondent on the ground that the respondent had never signed the agreement of sale and the same was forged. 2. The matter was taken up for trial and the evidence of both the petitioner as well as the respondent had been completed. After completion of the said trial, the petitioner moved I.A.No.344 of 2024 for calling certain documents, marked as Exs.P-1 to P-3 in C.C.No.329 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla and I.A.No.345 of 2024 for sending the said Exs.P-1 to P-3 along with the disputed agreement of sale to a handwriting expert for comparison of signatures of the respondent. 3. It was the case of the petitioner that the signatures of the respondent, were available on Exs.P-1 to P-3, which had been marked in C.C.No.329 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla and that the petitioner had also put a signature on vakalat and written statement in another suit O.S.No.24 of 2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla. The petitioner contended that these signatures are the admitted signatures of the respondent, and the same could be used for comparing the signatures on the disputed agreement of sale. 4 4. The trial Court after hearing both sides, had dismissed I.A.Nos.344 and 345 of 2024 on 06.05.2025, by way of separate orders. 5. Aggrieved by the said orders of dismissal, the petitioner has filed these two revision petitions. The respondent was served with notice and is represented by the learned counsel. However, there was no appearance for the respondent on the last few adjournments. On account of such absence, the matters were posted for orders today. There is no appearance for the respondent even today. As such, the matters were taken up on merits. 6. A perusal of the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.344 of 2024, would show that the trial Court had dismissed the application on the ground that the signatures sought to be summoned from the other courts were in the year 2013 and 2015 while the signature on the disputed agreement of sale is of the year 2014 and as such, the said signatures cannot be compared as they are not contemporaneous. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely upon the judgment of the Full Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad vs. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu and Others1 to contend that the view taken by the trial Court is incorrect. The Full Bench went into various aspects, relating to comparison of signatures and expert opinion given under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Full Bench had taken the view that the comparison of disputed handwriting / signatures with admitted handwritings/ signatures, 1 (2016) 162 AIC 288 : (2016) 2 ALT 248 : (2016) 2 ALD Page 1 5 separated by a time lag of 2 to 3 years, would be desirable so as to facilitate expert comparison in accordance with satisfactory standards. In the present case, the disputed signature is of the year 2014 while the admitted signatures are of the year 2013 and 2015. These would fall within the satisfactory period indicated by the Full Bench. 7. In that view of the matter, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed setting aside the orders of the trial court in I.A.Nos.344 of 2024 and 345 of 2025, dated 06.05.2025 and the said two applications. Are allowed. 8. The trial Court shall accordingly call for the documents, mentioned in I.A.Nos.344 of 2024 from the concerned court and sent the same along with the disputed agreement of sale to a handwriting expert for comparison and for report. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Date: 06.02.2026 KA 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 1974 AND 1977 OF 2025 Date: 06.02.2026 KA 7