APHC010581622025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3100/2025 Between: 1. TUNGALA NARESH, S/O. VENKATA SUBBA RAO AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,AGRICULTURAL COOLIE, R/O. VEKANURU VILLAGE, AVANIGADDA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. KORRAPATI RAMA RAO, S/o. Venkateswarlu aged about 60 years. Business, R/o.Chenchupet, Tenali, Guntur District ...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 tohe above named petitioner begs to present the above Civil Revision Petition questioning the Order dt. 13-10-2025 passed in I.A.No.565 of 2025 in O.S.No.60/2024 on the file of the court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali, Guntur District, Andhra 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. YASWANTH GADE Counsel for the Respondent: 1. 2 The Court made the following Order: The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.60 of 2024 before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Tenali, for recovery of an amount Rs.15,00,000/- and on the basis of a promissory note which is said to have been executed by the petitioner. In the course of the pleadings and in the course of the Trial, the petitioner has taken the plea that the said promissory note is forged and that he had not signed the said promissory note. In order to prove his case, the petitioner moved I.A.No.565 of 2025 before the Trial Court under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Trial Court by an Order, dated 13.10.2025 had dismissed the said application on the ground that no contemporaneous, admitted signatures of the petitioner were available for comparison and as such, the disputed signatures could be sent to any handwriting expert. 2. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 13.10.2025, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition. 3. Notice of this Civil Revision Petition had been served on the respondent and the proof of service is also filed by the petitioner, by way of a memo bearing USR.No.150112 of 2025. Despite the service of notice, the respondent had not chosen to appear before this Court and hence, this Petition is being disposed of on the basis of the material before this Court. 4. Sri G. Yaswanth, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the revision petitioner, has been able to obtain a document which 3 contains the signature of the petitioner, and which is comparable with the disputed signature. This document is said to be a registered sale deed, dated 20.01.2021, registered as document No.112 of 2021 before the Joint Sub- Registrar, Avanigadda, which contains the signature of the petitioner. The question of whether the signature on such a document can be accepted or not and whether it would amount to a contemporaneous document which is capable of being compared, are matters which would have to be decided by the Trial Court. 5. In the circumstances, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of setting aside the order of rejection of the Trial Court, dated 13.10.2025, in I.A.No.565 of 2025 and the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court to consider the said document, now being produced by the petitioner before the Court and to determine whether the signature on such a document would be a contemporaneous signature, which can be compared with the disputed signature. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Dated: 06.03.2026 BSM 4 THE HON’ABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3100 of 2025 06.03.2026 BSM