APHC010175942026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the twenty fourth day of July two thousand and twentysix The Honourable Civil Revision Petition Between: P.Sainath Reddy, S/o. P. Sreeram Redy, Aged about 40 years, Railway employee, Railway Quarters, Ananthapuram Town & district. and M. Nalinakshi, W/o. M. Aswartha Redy, aged about 52 years, D.No.17-992-7, 80 feet road, Venugopal Nagar, Anantapuram town, Anantapuram district. Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Ineni Venkata Prasad Counsel for the respondent: 1. Yattapu Bharath Kumar Reddy The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) the twenty fourth day of July two thousand and twentysix Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.1006 of 2026 , S/o. P. Sreeram Redy, Aged about 40 years, Railway employee, Railway Quarters, Ananthapuram Town & district. ….Petitioner / defendant , W/o. M. Aswartha Redy, aged about 52 years, 7, 80 feet road, Venugopal Nagar, Anantapuram town, ….Respondent / plaintif etitioner: Ineni Venkata Prasad espondent: Yattapu Bharath Kumar Reddy following: [3311] the twenty fourth day of July two thousand and twentysix , S/o. P. Sreeram Redy, Aged about 40 years, Railway ….Petitioner / defendant , W/o. M. Aswartha Redy, aged about 52 years, 7, 80 feet road, Venugopal Nagar, Anantapuram town, ….Respondent / plaintif 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1006 of 2026 ORDER: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated, 25.02.2026, dismissing I.A. No. 676 of 2025 in O.S. No. 1138 of 2021 on the file of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu, filed by the revision petitioner / defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking the opinion of an expert on the alleged signatures of the defendant on the suit promissory notes marked as ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ with the signatures of the petitioners. 2. The respondent herein filed the suit against the revision petitioner for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,07,760/- based on three promissory notes marked as ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ each for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable with interest @12% per annum from the date of the promissory notes i.e., 01.10.2018. 3. The revision petitioner filed the written statement denying the suit claim contending that the promissory notes were forged, fabricated, materially altered to file the suit and that he had never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff nor had the necessity to borrow any amount. After the examination of P.W.1 and marking the suit promissory notes / Exs. A1 to A3, he filed the petition in I.A. No.676 of 2025. The petition was opposed by filing a counter mainly on the ground that there is no need or necessity for the defendant to borrow any amount much less the amounts under alleged suit promissory notes marked as ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ from the plaintiff. It is further contended that the suit promissory notes / Exs. A1 to A3 were forged, fabricated and materially altered to file the suit. 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1006 of 2026 4. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that except the written statement and vakalath, there is no other signature of the defendant placed before the trial Court and that the signatures on vakalath and written statement cannot be considered as signatures of comparable and assured standard as by then, the defendant was clear in mind about the defense and therefore he might have signed the vakalath and written statement accordingly. 5. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed. 6. Heard both sides. 7. As rightly observed by the trial Court, the petitioner has not produced any standard admitted signatures of comparable nature for the purpose of securing opinion of an expert with the disputed signatures. Even though the written statement was filed shortly after the suit was filed, the present relief has not been sought. As there is no legal error in the order impugned in the revision, there is no merit in the revision petition. 8. In the result the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.24.07.2026 RAR Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No