APHC010588752025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3123 OF 2025 Between: 1. BIDDIKI ADDAI, S/o late Jammanna, Aged about 59 years, Employee, working at Department of Economic, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar University, Etcherla Village Etcherla Mandal Srikakulam District. ...Petitioner AND 1. KALLEPALLI RAMAMOHANARAO, S/o Late Ramulu, aged about 61 years, retired employee, R/o Suryanagar, Etcherla Village, Etcherla Mandal Srikakulam District. ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: KARRE SATYANANDAM Counsel for the Respondent TOTA TEJESWARA RAO 2 The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: When the Civil Revision Petition was called-out in the morning session Sri Karre Satyanandam, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner appeared, but there was no appearance on behalf of Plaintiff/Respondent. Therefore, to enable the Counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent to appear, the Civil Revision Petition was passed over. Even on second call, there is no appearance on behalf of the Plaintiff/Respondent. 2. Heard Sri Karre Satyanandam, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Plaintiff/Respondent has filed O.S.No.99 of 2023 for recovery of money of Rs.13,00,000/- with interest from 21.01.2021 to 21.11.2023. The Defendant/Revision Petitioner herein has filed the Written Statement contending that the promissory note filed by the Plaintiff is a rank forgery and the Plaintiff has forged the signatures of the Defendant with the help of Attestors and Scribe and that the Defendant has never executed any promissory note in favour of the Plaintiff. 4. In view of the stand taken by the Defendant/Revision Petitioner herein, the Revision Petitioner has filed I.A.No.584 of 2025 in O.S.No.99 of 2023 under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act praying the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam to send Ex.A.1 (Pronote) dated 21.01.2021 to the Handwriting Expert for comparison of the Petitioner’s admitted signatures on the Vakalatnama and Written Statement and also the Chief Affidavit of D.W.1 to the Forensic Lab, Hyderabad. The I.A.No.584 of 2025 was dismissed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam vide Order dated 17.09.2025. This Order is under challenge in the present Civil Revision Petition. 5. In Para No.9 of the Order, it is noticed by this Court that the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam has drawn surmise that 3 there is a chance of disguising of signatures subsequent to the date when the proceedings have started in the Court. The stand taken by this Plaintiff/Respondent is that the Defendant has recently changed his signature from time to time for taking this plea to avoid the payment to the Plaintiff. This apart, the learned Judge while dismissing the Application had also agreed with the contention of the Plaintiff/Respondent that the Application has been filed at a belated stage. 6. Having considered the findings rendered by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam, this Court is of the view that the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) had committed an error on three counts. Firstly, learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) ought not to have drawn surmise that there is a chance of the Defendant disguising the signatures subsequent to the filing of the Suit. In the opinion of this Court, Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) ought not to have drawn a surmise on this preposition that the Defendant could have changed the signatures. During the proceedings, it is the duty of the Court to accord every opportunity requested by the parties to prove their cases. The opportunity to lead evidence by any of the party cannot be scuttled by the Court on any conjectures or surmises. Secondly, the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam has also endorsed the contention that the Defendant/Revision Petitioner has been changing the signatures from time to time. Even assuming that the Defendant has been changing the signatures from time to time, it would be the duty of the Plaintiff to adduce sufficient evidence by projecting the contemporary signatures of the Defendant before the Trial Court. 7. Thirdly, insofar as the finding rendered by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam that the Application for sending the promissory note (Ex.A.1) along with the signatures of the Defendant to the Forensic Lab, Hyderabad is belated. This Court has noticed that the Written Statement has been filed on 22.02.2024 and I.A.No.584 of 2025 was filed on 4 01.09.2025. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that at a time when it was the turn of the Defendant to led his evidence, I.A.No.584 of 2025 has been filed. 8. This Court has noticed that the prayer in the Application is in tune with the averments of the Defendant in the Written Statement, since the Defendant has taken a categorical stand that his signature on the promissory note (Ex.A.1) is a rank forgery done by the Plaintiff with the help of Attestors and Scribe and in respect of the Written Statement filed in the month of February, 2024, this Court is of the view that the present Application bearing I.A.No.584 of 2025 filed in the first week of September, 2025 is not so belated. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned Order passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam dated 17.09.2025 is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the same is set aside. There shall be a direction to the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam to send the original promissory note (Ex.A.1) and the signatures of the Defendant to the Forensic Lab, Mangalagiri instead of Hyderabad within a period of three weeks from the date of uploading of this Order in the Website of the Court. Liberty is granted to the Plaintiff/Respondent herein to request the Court to send any other signatures of the Defendant like the signatures in the Bank Accounts or any other official record also for forensic examination. 10. Revision Petitioner/Defendant shall pay the requisite fee for sending the signatures to the Forensic Lab, Mangalagiri within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this Order in the Website of the Court. 11. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed in terms of the above directions. No order as to costs. 5 12. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 28.01.2026 JKS 6 148 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3123 OF 2025 28.01.2026 JKS