1 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.1498 of 2026) APHC010189082026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1498/2026 Between: 1. VUJJY BHASKARA SATYA VARA PRASAD,, S/O BABU RAO, AGED 60 YEARS, R/O PARAVADA VILLAGE AND MANDALA, ERSTWHILE VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT- 531021. ...PETITIONER AND 1. PENTAKOTA BHARATHI, W/o Venkatareddy Naidu, aged 46 years, R/o Narayanapuram Village, Rambilli Mandala, Erstwhile Visakhapatnam District, Presently Anakapalli District-531021 ...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 toMemorandum of Civil Revision Petition against the Order passed dated 12-02-2026 in LA. No. 678/2025 in O.S. No. 25/2023 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Yellamanchili Visakhapatnam District IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings including Trial of the Suit i.e., O.S. No. 25/2023 on the file of the Civil Judge(Senior Division): Yellamanchili Visakhapatnam District 2 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.1498 of 2026) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G SIMHADRI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 3 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.1498 of 2026) ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/defendant, being aggrieved by the judgment/order dated 11.09.2025 passed in I.A.No.678 of 2025 in O.S.No.25 of 2023 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yellamanchili, Visakhapatnam District. 2. Heard Sri G.Simhadri, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 3. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No.25 of 2023 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yellamanchili, instituted by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.21,71,000/- based on a promissory note, along with consequential reliefs. 4. The petitioner/defendant filed a written statement and an additional written statement specifically denying that he had borrowed any amount from the respondent/plaintiff or executed the suit promissory note. 5. Further, contending that the signatures appearing on the suit promissory note are not his signatures, the petitioner filed I.A. No.678 of 2025 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, seeking to send the suit promissory note (Ex.A1) to a handwriting expert for comparison of the disputed signatures with his admitted signatures and for obtaining the expert's 4 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.1498 of 2026) opinion. The prayer in I.A.No.678 of 2025, vide paragraph No.4 reads as under: “Under the above circumstances I pray the Honourable Court may be pleased to order for sending the suit promissory i.e. Ex.A1 along with my admitted signature i.e. on Vakalat, written statement, signatures of me in my chief and cross-examination and other signatures of me to be obtained in the open court to the hand writing expert for the purpose of comparison to arrive at conclusion that the alleged signature on the suit promissory note is of me or not thereby for getting expert opinion in that regard for proper adjudication of the above number suit in the interests of justice as otherwise I will be put to irreparable loss and injury.” 6. The respondent/plaintiff filed a counter opposing the application and prayed for its dismissal, submitting that the application had been filed at a belated stage and that the petitioner/defendant had not produced any document containing his contemporaneous signatures for comparison. 7. The learned trial Court, by order dated 11.09.2025, dismissed the application, on the ground that the petitioner/defendant had not produced any contemporaneous admitted signatures for comparison of the disputed signatures on the suit promissory note. Instead, the petitioner sought comparison of the disputed signatures with his signatures available on the Court record, namely, those appearing on the written statement, vakalat, and his deposition in chief and cross-examination. 5 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.1498 of 2026) 8. Additionally, the learned trial Court recorded that the petitioner had taken inconsistent pleas in the written statement and the additional written statement. It also noted that no application seeking comparison of signatures had been filed immediately after filing the written statement and that the application was filed only at the belated stage of further evidence, apparently with a view to delay the suit proceedings. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the disputed signatures on the suit promissory note could be compared with the petitioner's admitted signatures available on the vakalat, written statement filed, and his depositions in chief and cross-examination recorded, in the very suit, and in any event, the learned trial Court could have taken his specimen signatures in open Court for comparison. 10. No other point was raised. 11. I have considered the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 12. The signatures appearing on the vakalat, written statement or even the deposition recorded in the same suit cannot be treated as admitted signatures for the purpose of comparison with the disputed signatures on the suit promissory note, which forms the very basis of the suit. The obvious reason is that such signatures come into existence, after the institution of the suit and only after the defendant had received the summons. The possibility of 6 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.1498 of 2026) the defendant consciously varying or disguising his signatures cannot be ruled out. Such signatures cannot constitute a safe or reliable standard for comparison by a handwriting expert. 13. In B. Prabhakar @ B. Prabhakar Naidu Vs. Hari Prasad1, this Court held in paragraphs 29 to 32 as under: “29. In Dara Srinivasa Rao (3 supra), it has been clearly laid down that the defendant’s signatures on his vakalat and written statement, cannot be considered as signatures of assured standard for comparison with his disputed signatures. 30. It is apt to reproduce para Nos.9 to 11 of Dara Srinivasa Rao (3 supra) as under: “9. On perusal of the impugned order under this revision and also the material available on record, it appears that the disputed signature in Ex.A1/suit promissory note is dated 15.01.2012 and the suit was filed in the year 2015. The present revision petition is filed in the year 2019 to send the suit promissory note for comparison of signature with admitted signatures of the petitioner over Vakalat and Written Statement. Admittedly, there is a gap of three years between both of them. As such, the proposition of law laid down by this Court in Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad v. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu (5) 2016 (2) ALT 248 (F.B.) = AIR 2016 (Hyd.) 118, relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is no useful to support his contention basing on the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. In the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the respondent in Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy v. Baddam Pratapa Reddy (dead) through Legal Representatives and another (6) 2019 (5) ALT 206 (SC) = (2019) 14 SCC 220, the Hon’ble Apex Court at Para No.24, it was held as under: “There is another reason why we are not inclined to place reliance on the opinion of the expert DW2. From a perusal of his report Ext. B2, 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 vakalatnama and the written statement filed in this suit itself). These admitted signatures taken subsequent to the filing of the suit could not have been used as a valid 1 2023(5)ALT 722 7 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.1498 of 2026) basis of comparison, and their use for this purpose casts serious doubt on the reliability of the entire report Ext. B2. Thus, the report was liable to be discarded on this ground alone, and was wrongly relied upon by the High Court.” 11. This Court has an occasion to consider the similar issue in P.Padmanabhaiah v. G.Srinivasa Rao (7) AIR 2016 AP 118 (FB) and held as under: “In the well considered view of this Court, the defendant’s signatures on the Vakalat and the written statement cannot be considered as signatures of comparable and assured standard as according to the plaintiff even by the date of the filing of the Vakalat the defendant is clear in his mind about his stand in regard to the denial of his signatures on the suit promissory note and the endorsement thereon and as the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant might have designedly disguised his signatures on the Vakalat and the written statement cannot be ruled out prima facie. The view point being projected by the plaintiff that if the defendant is called upon to furnish his signatures in open Court, he might designedly disguise his signatures while making his signatures on papers in open Court is also having considerable force and merit. Unless the defendant makes available to the Court below any documents, with his signatures, of authentic and reliable nature more or less of a contemporaneous period, and unless such documents are in turn made available to the expert along with the suit promissory note, the expert will not be in a position to furnish an assured opinion, in the well considered view of this Court.” 31. In Byalla Devadas (4 supra), also, the same proposition of law has been laid down. It has been held that the signatures on the vakalat and the written statement of the defendant cannot be send for comparison to the disputed signatures. There would be no point in sending to an expert the documents of doubtful nature and character and add one more piece of unreliable evidence. It is unsafe to obtain the signatures of the defendant in open Court and send the said signatures and also his vakalat and written statement to an expert for obtaining opinion after comparison. It was further observed and held that the defendant’s signature on the vakalat and the written statement cannot be considered as signatures of comparable and assured standard, as by that time i.e., filing of the vakalat and written statement, the defendant is clear in his mind about his stand in regard to the denial of his signatures on the suit promissory note. The endorsement thereon cannot be ruled out as the defendant might have designedly, 8 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.1498 of 2026) disguised his signatures on the vakalat and written statement. 32. Para Nos.9 and 10 in Byalla Devadas (4 supra), are reproduced as under: “9. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to the orders passed by a learned Judge in P.Padmanabhaiah and the case of Dara Srinivasa Rao. In P.Padmanabhaiah case referred supra, the defendant in O.S.No.324 of 2010 on the file of Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the vakalat and written statement containing his signatures along with the promissory note (Ex.A1) for handwriting expert for comparison of his signatures on the vakalat and written statement with the signatures said to be of him on Ex.A.1 and furnish a report with opinion as to the genuineness or otherwise of the disputed signatures on the said exhibits. The said application was allowed. The learned Judge of this Court while interfering with the orders of the Trial Court had extensively dealt with the matters with reference to comparison of signatures on vakalat and written statement with the disputed documents, inter alia, held as follows: “In the well considered view of this Court, the defendants signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be considered as signatures of comparable and assured standard as according to the plaintiff even by the date of the filing of the vakalat the defendant is clear in his mind about his stand in regard to the denial of his signatures on the suit promissory note and the endorsement thereon and as the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant might have designedly disguised his signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be ruled out prima facie. The view point being projected by the plaintiff that if the defendant is called upon to furnish his signatures in open Court, he might designedly disguise his signatures while making his signatures on papers in open Court is also having considerable force and merit. Unless the defendant makes available to the Court below any documents, with his signatures, of authentic and reliable nature more or less of a contemporaneous period, and unless such documents are in turn made available to the expert along with the suit promissory note, the expert will not be in a position to furnish an assured opinion, in the well considered view of this Court. ……..There is no point in sending to an expert the documents of doubtful nature and character and add one more piece of unreliable evidence and burden the record by wasting the time and money of the parties. When there are no signatures of comparable and assured standard on the material record before the trial Court, it is unsafe to obtain the signatures of the defendant in open Court and send the said signatures and also his vakalat and written statement to an expert for obtaining his opinion after comparison of the signatures thereon with the 9 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.1498 of 2026) disputed signatures on the suit promissory note, as any such opinion obtained from a handwriting expert on such material is not going to be of any help to the trial Court in effectively adjudicating the lis more particularly in the light of the admitted legal position that expert’s opinion evidence as to handwriting or signatures can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence.” 10. In the light of the above well considered view of the learned Judge, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Trial Judge, though the reason assigned by it for dismissing the I.A. in question to the effect that no steps were taken before commencement of Trial is not sustainable. In the light of the above conclusions, Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.” 14. The aforesaid decision makes it clear that only contemporaneous admitted signatures, executed prior to the same litigation, can furnish a safe and reliable standard for comparison by a handwriting expert. 15. Additionally, the application was filed at a belated stage, when the suit had reached the stage of further evidence on behalf of the defendant. Therefore, the observation of the learned trial Court that the application had been filed at a belated stage with a view to protract the proceedings appears to be justified. This is in addition to the valid reason assigned by the learned trial Court that the petitioner had failed to produce any contemporaneous admitted signatures for comparison with the disputed signatures. 16. The petitioner failed to produce any contemporaneous admitted signatures executed prior to the dispute for comparison with the disputed signatures on the suit promissory note. The learned trial Court, therefore, rightly declined to send the document for expert opinion. 10 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.1498 of 2026) 17. The alternative submission that the learned trial Court ought to have directed the petitioner to affix specimen signatures in open Court also cannot be accepted, as specimen signatures obtained after commencement of the litigation cannot substitute contemporaneous admitted signatures, particularly when the petitioner failed to produce any admitted writings of the relevant period. 18. The reasons assigned by the learned trial Court are in consonance with the settled legal position and do not suffer from any illegality, perversity, material irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 19. The Civil Revision Petition lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date : 19.06.2026. RPD. 11 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.1498 of 2026) 111 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI (DISMISSED) CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1498 OF 2026 Date : 19.06.2026 RPD.