APHC010504552025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3163] THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2676 of 2025 Between: 1. HARMEET SINGH GUJRAL, S/O LATE CH.S.GUJRAL, AGED 57 YEARS, R/O.D.No.59A-8/4-2, FLAT No.501, VASAVI NAGAR, ROHAN RESIDENCY, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KOMATI VAMSI KRISHNA, S/O SUDHAKARA RAO, AGED 34 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.40-6/1-6, PARK ROAD, REVENUE COLONY, MOGHALRAJPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. KUNUKU RAJASEKHAR The Court made the following: 2 CMR,J C.R.P.No.2676 of 2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2676 of 2025 O R D E R: In this civil revision petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 10.09.2025 passed in I.A.No.860 of 2025 in O.S.No.63 of 2022 on the file of the learned VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, whereby the petition filed under Order XVI Rule 14 of C.P.C. to summon the Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Buckinghampet Branch, Vijayawada, to produce the old and new specimen signatures of the petitioner, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.63 of 2022 on the file of the learned VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. The said suit was filed against him by the respondent herein for recovery of money on the foot of a promissory note. The petitioner has taken a plea in his written statement admitting his signature on the suit promissory note and he only pleaded that the said signature was taken on a blank promissory note in a different context earlier on 15.10.2011 and later, the suit promissory note was fabricated in the year 2019 with the help of the said signature. Therefore, he has filed the present petition to summon the Chief Manager of the bank to produce his old and new specimen signatures. The said petition came to be dismissed by the impugned order. 4. The trial Court, at para 13 of the impugned order, has clearly held that the petitioner has not taken any plea in the written statement that the plaintiff has created Ex.A1-suit promissory note by forging his 3 CMR,J C.R.P.No.2676 of 2025 signature and that he has also not taken any plea that earlier he used to sign in a particular format and subsequently he is signing in a different manner. Therefore, the trial Court did not entertain the petition and dismissed the same. 5. Upon considering the reasons assigned by the trial Court in dismissing the said petition, this Court finds no valid ground to interfere with the impugned order as there is no legal flaw or infirmity found therein. 6. It is relevant to note here that the petitioner has earlier filed a petition to ascertain the age of the ink relating to the signature found on the suit promissory note. The said petition was dismissed. When the petitioner challenged the same before this Court in revision, it was also dismissed. Thereafter, he has filed another petition for ascertaining the age of the stamp on the suit promissory note and it was also dismissed. No revision was preferred against the said order and it became final. 7. In fact, when the petitioner pleads that he has signed on a blank promissory note in the year 2011 and it was fabricated into suit promissory note in the year 2019, ascertaining the age of the ink relating to the signature on the suit promissory note would have resolved the controversy. But, the trial Court as well as this Court did not order for the same. Now, summoning the bank manager to produce the old and present specimen signatures of the petitioner is of no use when the age of the ink cannot be determined. Further, as rightly held by the trial Court, the petitioner did not specifically plead that earlier he used to sign in a particular manner and now he signs in a different manner. When there is no such specific plea to that effect, no useful purpose would be served in calling for the old and new 4 CMR,J C.R.P.No.2676 of 2025 specimen signatures from the bank. Obviously, the present petition is filed to further protract the proceedings of the suit, which is at the fag end of the trial. Therefore, as observed, there are no valid grounds emanating from the record warranting interference of this Court. 8. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is dismissed, affirming the impugned order of the trial Court. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, in this case shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date: 08.01.2026 IBL 5 CMR,J C.R.P.No.2676 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2676 of 2025 Dt: 08.01.2026 IBL