APHC010718152025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Wednesday, the Eighteenth day of March, Two Thousand and Twenty Six The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition Between: 1. D.Venkatesulu, S/o.Late D.Sankaraiah, aged about 60 years, R/o.D.No.6-6-58, Adarsha Colony, Ananthapuramu 1. C.Sudhakar Reddy, S/o. C.Narsi Reddy, aged about 52 years, R/o. D.No.13-3-765 Khaja Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Yattapu Bharath Kumar Reddy Counsel for the respondent: 1. N.Aswartha Narayana IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Wednesday, the Eighteenth day of March, Two Thousand and Twenty Six Present The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.3837 of 2025 D.Venkatesulu, S/o.Late D.Sankaraiah, aged about 60 years, 58, Adarsha Colony, Ananthapuramu-515 001. ...Petitioner and C.Sudhakar Reddy, S/o. C.Narsi Reddy, aged about 52 years, R/o. Nagar, Ananthapuramu - 515 001. ...Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Yattapu Bharath Kumar Reddy Counsel for the respondent: N.Aswartha Narayana IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Wednesday, the Eighteenth day of March, Two Thousand and Twenty Six D.Venkatesulu, S/o.Late D.Sankaraiah, aged about 60 years, ...Petitioner C.Sudhakar Reddy, S/o. C.Narsi Reddy, aged about 52 years, R/o. ...Respondent 2 BSB,J C.R.P.No.3837 of 2025 The Court made the following order: This revision petition is filed by the petitioner / defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 19.06.2025 dismissing the petition in I.A.No.105 of 2025 in O.S.No.690 of 2017 filed under section 13 (1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (BNS) (section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act) seeking to send the mortgage deed dated 12.05.2014 marked as Ex.A1 and ‘Oppudala agreement’ deed dated 12.05.2014 marked as Ex.B1 (sic Ex.B2) to an expert for opinion on comparison of the signature of the executant of Ex.B2 with the signature of the plaintiff on Ex.A1. 2. The respondent / plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.11,10,400/- based on the mortgage deed dated 12.05.2014 (Ex.A1) against the defendant. The suit was opposed by the defendant taking defence that he had borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff and not Rs.6,00,000/- under Ex.A1 on the promise that the plaintiff would later pay the defendant the balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- evidencing which ‘Oppudala patram’ (Ex.B2) had been executed on the same day, but suppressing the same, the suit had been filed. It is further pleaded that, out of due amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, the defendant had transferred Rs.1,50,000/- to the account of the plaintiff through the account of his wife and another amount of Rs.20,000/- through the account of his brother-in-law and that he is due only Rs.30,000/- with interest thereon. 3. Pending the trial, the defendant filed I.A.No.105 of 2025 seeking the above noted prayer, while reiterating the defence in the written statement, further stating that the witness to the mortgage deed and the ‘Oppudala patram’ is one and the same and the scribe of these documents had been summoned by the defendant (through Court) to give evidence, but he (examined as C.W.1) had turned hostile being influenced by the plaintiff and stated that he had drafted Ex.B2, but no witness or party had been there. Therefore, the defendant contended that it is necessary to seek the opinion of an expert. 3 BSB,J C.R.P.No.3837 of 2025 4. The petition was opposed by filing a counter of the respondent, mainly stating that it is not desirable to send these documents to an expert when there are independent witnesses available to prove the execution of Ex.B2 and that law does not contemplate such step at this stage. It is also contended that mere sending of Ex.A1 and Ex.B2 to an expert does not serve any purpose unless the defendant produces a signature of the plaintiff on any document executed in the year 2014 as there would be change in a signature with passage of time. It was further contended that the petition was filed only to drag on the proceedings. 5. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner erroneously mentioned Ex.B1 instead of Ex.B2 and that the signature of the plaintiff was not available on Ex.A1, though Ex.B2 contains the signatures of both the parties (to the document). Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed. 6. Sri Munnangi Thanmai Krishna, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the document under Ex.A1, as such, does not contain the signature of the plaintiff, the copy of the driving licence annexed to Ex.A1 contains an original signature of the plaintiff as he endorsed in his own hand writing that the copy of the licence is true and thus his signature is available before the Court, but unfortunately it was not brought to the notice of the trial Court. She further submitted that since the petition was dismissed on the sole ground of non-availability of the signature of the plaintiff on Ex.A1, though it contained the signature on the annexed document as aforesaid, it is necessary to interfere with the order of the trial Court in this revision and grant the relief sought, since there is no other objection recorded. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner had failed to examine any witness to Ex.B2 to prove its execution or that the balance of amount of Rs.4,00,000/- had not been paid and that no step had 4 BSB,J C.R.P.No.3837 of 2025 been taken by the defendant by issuing notice or taking any other step raising the issue of non-payment of Rs.4,00,000/- from 2014 to 2017 i.e., till the suit was filed by the plaintiff, if there existed a document. Therefore, he contended that it is only a futile exercise made to delay the proceedings. 8. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the instructions to her, one of the witnesses to Ex.B2 is no more and the whereabouts of the other witness are not known and that the scribe of Ex.B2 turned hostile. 9. As can be seen from the impugned order, the main reason for rejecting the relief is that the signature of the plaintiff was not available on Ex.A1, whereas, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the document annexed to Ex.A1 was endorsed in the handwriting of the plaintiff as true copy of the licence and thus, it contains the original signature of the plaintiff. Since it is the burden of the defendant to prove the case in defence, it has become essential to secure the opinion of an expert on the disputed alleged signature of the plaintiff on Ex.B2. Therefore, it is a fit case to allow the petition, since the relief was rejected by the trial Court under mistaken impression that there is no original signature of the plaintiff available on Ex.A1. 10. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order, dated 19.06.2025, in I.A.No.105 of 2025 in O.S.No.690 of 2017 is set aside and the petition is allowed. Since the suit is an old case, the trial Court may mention to the expert to send the report early, on priority basis. There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Dated. 18.03.2026 GRL 5 BSB,J C.R.P.No.3837 of 2025 176 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi C.R.P. No.3837 of 2025 Dated. 18.03.2026 GRL