1 Orders Reserved on : 07.05.2026. Orders Pronounced on : 15.06.2026. Orders Uploaded on : 16.06.2026. APHC010050242026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 339 OF 2026 Between: 1. N. DAMODARAM NAIDU, ,S/O SUBBARAMA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,OCC. HEAD MASTER, Z.P. HIGH SCHOOL, V. KOTA, RESIDING AT V. KOTA VILLAGE AND POST.CHITTOOR DISTRICT- 517424. ...PETITIONER AND 1. M SAVITHRAMMA, (DIED) 2. M TIRUMALA RAJU, S/0 GOVINDAIAH, R/0 V.C VODDIPALLE VILLAGE, KAVETIGARIPALLE POST, PULICHERLA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT A.P. 3. P BHARATHI, W/0 SUNDARA RAJULU, S/0 GOVINDAIAH, R/0 D.NO. 13-7-943/G6 NEAR ASTALAKASHMI TEMPLE, KORLAGUNTA, TIRUPATI TOWN AND DISTRICT A.P. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. D SANGEETHA REDDY 2 The Court made the following ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against Order dated 02.01.2026 in I.A.No.305 of 2025 in O.S.No.285 of 2018, on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chittoor. 2) The petitioner herein is the defendant in the said suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,95,077/- on the foot of a promissory note stated to have been executed by the defendant. The said document was marked as Ex.A1. Petitioner / defendant filed the said I.A. under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 151 of CPC seeking to send the promissory note to forensic lab expert to ascertain differences in writing, in date, amount and the writings in the promissory note. In the affidavit filed in support of the said I.A., it was, inter alia, stated to the effect that the said promissory note (Ex.A1) was executed in respect of a chit transaction as security for future installments and that the petitioner handed over the pronote by putting his signature, date and amount on the same to one Smt. P. Bharathi / 3rd plaintiff. In para No.5 of the affidavit it was further averred that “the scribe & attestors admitted that entire body including date & amount was written by scribe only.” 3) Resisting the said I.A., counter affidavit on behalf of plaintiff was filed, wherein it was stated that the I.A. in question was filed after dismissal of the application seeking to recall PW 2 for further cross-examination, that too when the matter was posted for arguments on behalf of the defendant by changing the advocate and that the petition is filed to prolong the matter. 3 4) Learned Trial Court after considering the contentions advanced on both sides and referring to the judgments relied on by them vide order under revision dismissed the I.A. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioner made detailed submissions assailing the order of the learned Trial Court. He strenuously contends that the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the I.A. in question without appreciating the matter in the correct perspective. Referring to the oral evidence of the parties to the suit he submits that the learned Trial Court erred in not exercising the discretion vested in it. It is his contention that by sending the document i.e., promissory note (Ex.A1) for ascertaining the differences in writing, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents / plaintiffs and in fact, it would help the learned Trial Court in arriving at just conclusions. Learned counsel had also drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant portions of the oral evidence of the concerned witnesses and contends that it is a fit case for ordering the application and seek opinion of the expert. He accordingly prays to allow the I.A. in question by setting aside the impugned order. 6) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents / plaintiffs made submissions to sustain the order under revision. She submits that I.A. was filed when the matter was posted for arguments only with a view to protract the litigation and the application is lacking in bona fides. She further submits that the learned Trial Court had assigned cogent reasons for rejecting the application seeking expert’s opinion and there is no illegality or perversity in the order under challenge. Making the said submissions, learned counsel seeks dismissal of the revision petition. 4 7) This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 8) On appreciation of the rival contentions, the only point that arises for adjudication is “Whether the impugned order warrants interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in the facts and circumstances of the case?” 9) At the outset, it may be pertinent to mention that even as per the statement of the petitioner / defendant made in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., he handed over the suit pronote by affixing his signature, date and amount to one of the plaintiffs. In the said affidavit, as noted earlier, he has also referred to the admissions stated to have been made by the scribe and attestors (see para 5 of the affidavit filed in I.A.No.305 of 2025). But his stand appears to be that there is difference in handwriting on the top of the amount column and the date of pronote with handwriting on the body of pronote. In the written statement he pleaded that the pronote was not executed by him and it seems to be fabricated by the plaintiff with active collusion of so called attestors and scribe before filing of the suit. Statement to the effect that at the insistence of Smt. P.Bharathi, he executed a promissory note towards security for the chit by filling it partly in respect of amount, date and handed over the same to said Bharathi was made. With reference to the said document-Ex.A1 both sides have adduced oral evidence extensively. When that be the situation, the relevant aspect with regard to difference in handwriting can easily be examined by the learned Trial Court while appreciating the documentary evidence. No doubt it is true that the evidence of expert would 5 be helpful to the Court in arriving at a just conclusion. However, it is not a rule of thumb that all the documents are to be necessarily sent for expert opinion. It all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 10) Learned Trial Court while taking note of the fact that the petitioner / defendant is not disputing his signature on the suit promissory note felt that various contentions with regard to difference of handwriting can be decided by appreciating the evidence on record. The said view of learned Trial Court is valid, does not suffer from any illegality, much less perversity. Though it is settled law that the application seeking opinion of expert can be filed at any stage of the suit, the same cannot be filed without any justification. In the present case it appears that only at the stage of arguments, by changing the counsel, the application in question was filed, for obvious reasons. Be that as it may. As rightly opinioned by the learned Trial Court, various contentions with reference to execution of Ex.A1 pronote can as well be addressed during the course of arguments by relying on the oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, this Court see no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The point is answered accordingly. 11) For the aforegoing reasons the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. 12) Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date:15.06.2026 Ssv 6 HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CRP No.339 OF 2026 Date:15.06.2026 Ssv