APHC010525272025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2602/2025 Between: 1. KOLLURU SWAMY,, S/O. S/O KOLLURU KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O BEHIND INDIAN PETROL BUNK, TENALI ROAD, KOLLURU VILLAGE,AND MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRIKAKULAM SRINIVAS, S/o. S. Venkata Rao, Aged about 42 years, R/o. Havambavi, Sariguppa Road, Near APMC Check Post, Srinivas Nagar, Ballad, Karnataka. ...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 topleased to allow the CRP by setting aside the order dated 03-09- 2025 Passed in I.A. No. 479 of 2025 in O.S No. 34 of 2024 passed on the file of the Addl., Civil Judge(Senior Division) Tenali. To direct the trial court to send the suit promissory note to a qualified hand writing expert for comparison of the disputed signatures with the Petitioner's admitted signatures and obtain an opinion 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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 2 03-09-2025 Passed in I.A. No. 479 of 2025 in O.S No. 34 of 2024 passed on the file of the Addl., Civil Judge(Senior Division) :: Tenali. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ABDUL HAMEED BAIG MOHAMAAD Counsel for the Respondent: 1. MARELLA RADHA 3 The Court made the following ORDER: The respondent has filed O.S.No.34 of 2024 before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali for recovery of money based on a pronote. This pronote was marked as Ex.A-1. 2. The petitioner contends that the signature on the said pronote is not his signature and has been fabricated by the respondent. In order to demonstrate this allegation, the petitioner filed I.A.No.479 of 2025, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short “the Act”) to send the pronote, marked as Ex.A-1 for comparison with the admitted signatures of the petitioner. 3. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court on 03.09.2025, on the ground that no contemporaneous documents containing the admitted signatures have been filed along with the application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present civil revision petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is now in possession of documents, containing his admitted signatures, and the same can be sent for comparison along with Ex.A-1 pronote. 5. In such circumstances, it would only be appropriate to remand the matter back to the trial Court for verifying whether the signatures and the documents produced by the petitioner meet the requirements of Section 45 of the Act. 4 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order of the learned Judge, dated 03.09.2025 in I.A.No.479 of 2025, and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court for verification of the documents produced by the petitioner and for taking a decision as to whether the application filed under Section 45 of the Act can be allowed on the basis of the documents produced before the trial Court. 7. It must also be observed that the entire exercise of approaching the trial Court and this Court without production of the documents is clearly a negligent way of handling the suit, which has resulted in the respondent having to engage a counsel for defending his case before this Court. Accordingly, the petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent in the trial Court. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Date: 30.01.2026 KA 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2602/2025 Date: 30.01.2026 KA