APHC010574272025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3005/2025 Between: 1. KODURI RAJA RAVINDRA BABU, S/O. LATE VENKATA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R./O. SOUTH STREET, ONGOLE. ...PETITIONER AND 1. JALADI SATHI SULOCHANA, W/o. Late Nageswara Rao, Aged about 67 years, R./o. Godavari Street, Bapatla. ...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 toBeing aggrieved by the order Dated 18.09.2025 in I.A.No.322 of 2025 in O.S.No.102 of 2016 on the file of the Honble Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Ongole, the above named petitioner beg to prefer this memorandum of Civil Revision petition of the following among other 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 in O.S.No.102 of 2016 on the file of Hon’ble Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Ongole and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SIRAM JASWANTH Counsel for the Respondent: 2 1. INAKOLLU VENKATESWARLU The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:3005/2025 ORDER:- The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 18.09.2025 in I.A.No.322 of 2025 in O.S.No.102 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division),Ongole. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and respondent herein is the defendant in the suit. For convenience of the Court, the parties are referred as arrayed in the suit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the suit is filed in the year 2016 seeking for recovery of money basing upon the promissory note said to have been executed by the defendant. The plea of the defendant in her written statement is that the subject promissory note is a forged one. For which the defendant herein filed I.A.No.181 of 2022 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 praying to send the subject promissory note for expert opinion along with the admitted signatures placed before the trial court. After considering the plea of the defendant, the trial Court dismissed the IA., which was assailed by way of Revision Petition by the defendant vide CRP.No.2568 of 2022, wherein, this Court, disposed of the 4 revision petition vide orders dated 06.11.2024 directing the defendant to furnish the admitted contemporary signatures for consideration of the plea prayed in the petition filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Again the defendant filed I.A.No.322 of 2025 along with the admitted signatures in the account opening form of the defendant on 02.12.2016. Considering the same, the trial Court allowed the petition vide its order dated 18.09.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred this Revision Petition. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/ revision petitioner submits that the admitted signatures dated 02.12.2016 is neither contemporary signatures nor the subject documents relates prior to the institution of the suit. Therefore the same cannot be considered as admitted and contemporary signatures of the defendant in view of the judgment rendered by the Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy v. Baddam Pratapa Reddy (dead)1, wherein, it is held as follows: “There is another reason why we are not inclined to place reliance on the opinion of the expert DW2 from a perusal of a office report, Ext.B-2, it is evident that barring the signature on a written statement in a prior suit, all other admitted signatures of the first defendant are of a period subsequent to the filing of the plaint (i.e., on the vakalathnama and the written statement filed in the suit itself). These admitted signatures taken subsequent to the filing of the suit could not have been used as a valid basis of comparison, and their use for this purpose casts serious doubt on the reliability of the entire report, Ext.B-2. Thus, the report was liable to be discarded on this ground alone, and was wrongly relied upon by the High Court.” 1 (2019) 14 Supreme Court Cases 220 5 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant/ respondent submits that the defendant is a widowed and physically handicapped women and her claim in the written statement is that the said promissory note is forged document, so it should be tested by the expert to prove whether the promissory note is genuine or forged. He further submits that the admitted signatures in the Account Opening Form are within three (03) years from the date of execution of the promissory note. Therefore, it would be admitted signatures. After the trial court came to a conclusion that the documents furnished by the defendant are within a period of three (03) years from the date of execution of promissory note, so they are treated as admitted signatures and the trial Court rightly allowed the petition of the defendant for expert opinion. Therefore, the order of the trial Court does not warrant any interference. 7. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, as contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the subject account opening form which was submitted and treated by the trial court as contemporary document and admitted signatures is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as extracted supra, wherein, it is upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court that when the documents which were furnished are executed after institution of suit, there may be serious doubt on the reliability of the entire report. It is further held that the admitted signatures which were taken subsequent to the filing of the suit would not have been issued as valid basis for pursuing their 6 view, for the purpose, they may cause serious doubt on the reliability of the entire expert report. Furthermore, the trial court observed in its order at Para No.13, the defendant executed various documents as enumerated and executed the same with different types of signatures. Therefore, this itself indicates the defendant is not following authenticity of signatures and the nature of the signatures. It is further observed by this Court that in any parallance, the people use to make attestations or signatures in different documents basing upon the documents which were putforth before them. In the case on hand, since the admitted signature relied by the defendant in the document is an account opening form so the defendant signed with full name. As far as the other documents executed by her are concerned, she signed with a different signature. As such, this Court is inclined to direct the trial Court to resolve the issue basing upon the evidence rather than depending upon the expert opinion. 8. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J Date:17.02.2026 BSP 7 102 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3005/2025 Date:17.02.2026 BSP