Orders Reserved on : 06.03.2026. Orders Pronounced on : 22.04.2026. Orders Uploaded on : 22.04.2026. APHC010669692025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3612 OF 2025 Between: 1. DEVALAPALLE SATISH REDDY, S/O. D.VENKATARAMANA REDDY, AGED 60 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. 19-12-127 BAIRAGIPATTEDA, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. B MANOHAR, S/o. B.Munirathnam, aged about 55 years, Occ Business, R/o. 19-12-247, 1st Floor, Bairagipatteda, Tirupathi, Presently R/o. Plot No. 19 A, Sathyam Valley, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Bachpalli Rangareddy District, State of Telangana. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S V MUNI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SAI AKASH N 2 The Court made the following ORDER: The present Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.2025, passed in I.A.No.621 of 2025 in O.S.No.96 of 2021, on the file of the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tirupati. 2) The petitioner herein is the defendant in the said suit. The respondent- plaintiff filed O.S.No.96 of 2021 for recovery of an amount of Rs.36,06,666/- from the petitioner-defendant, on the strength of pronote. In the written statement, a plea that the suit pronote is forged and fabricated was taken. The petitioner / defendant filed the above said I.A., under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the suit pronote dated 15.12.2019 along with his admitted signatures for opinion of an expert and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner made his submissions to impress upon the Court that the order under revision was passed without considering the matter in its correct perspective. He submits that the learned Trial Court committed an error in exercising its jurisdiction and rejecting the application in question. He submits that a specific plea was taken in the written statement disputing the signature on the suit pronote (Ex.A1), and in the said circumstances, the disputed documents ought to have been referred for the opinion of the experts. He submits that the opinion of the expert would aid the Court in rendering complete justice and in fact, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff. In the light of the decisions in G.V.Rami Reddy 3 Vs. D. Mohan Raju1and Namineni Audi Seshaiah Vs. Numburu Mohan Rao2, the I.A. in question deserves to be allowed. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the material filed along with a Memo and addressed arguments with reference to the same. 4) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent made submissions relying on the averments made in the written statement filed by the petitioner / defendant. He submits that it is the specific case of the petitioner / defendant that the signatures were taken / obtained on blank promissory notes, thus, the signatures are not in dispute. He submits that in view of the admission made by the petitioner / defendant in the written statement, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the application is filed only for the purpose of the delaying the matter. He further submits that so far as the relief sought for in the I.A., in question i.e., sending the disputed documents for determining the age of the ink used for petitioner/defendant’s signature in the pronote and the signatures of the attestors and scribe thereon, he submits that a learned Judge in Polana Jawaharlal Nehru Vs MaddiralaPrabhakara Reddy3, elaborately considered the issue with regard to determination of the age of the ink and was not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Trial Court dismissing the application. He also placed reliance on the decision of the learned Judge of this Court in Velagapudi Kishore Kumar Vs Boppana Venkata Naga Krishna4 and an Order in 12019 (2) ALD 481 (AP) 22018 (6) ALD 751 32017 SCC OnLineHyd 74 4CRP No.2 of 2025, dt.05.03.2025 (APHC) 4 Dnyaneshwar Eknath Gulhane Vs Vinod Ramchandra Lokhande5 passed by a learned Judge of High Court of Judicature at Mumbai (Nagpur Bench). He submits that the learned Trial Court after considering the matter in detail had rightly rejected the request / application of the petitioner–defendant by placing reliance on Kambala Nageswara Rao Vs. Kesana Balakrishna6, rendered in similar fact situation. He submits that there is no illegality or perversity in the order under challenge and, therefore, the Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 5) This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 6) At the outset, it may be pertinent to mention that the petitioner / defendant in the written statement had taken a stand inter alia to the effect that the signatures were taken on blank promissory notes, used one of the blank promissory notes for the purpose of the present suit. He is seeking to send one such promissory note dated 05.12.2019 (EX.A.1) for opinion of the expert vide I.A.No.621 of 2025. No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioner made submission emphatically by placing reliance on decisions cited supra. However, this Court had an occasion to consider the decisions on the issue of referring the disputed documents for the opinion of the experts with regard to the age of the ink in Smt. Uppala Veera Raghavamma Kumari Jyothi & Another Vs. Reddy Veera Venkata Satyanarayana7. In the said order, the decision in Polana Jawaharlal Nehru (3 supra) was relied on. The 5Crl.W.P.No.542 of 2023 dt.02.11.2023 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay – Nagpur Bench) 62014 (1) ALT 636 7CRP Nos.1379 & 1386 of 2024, dt.13.12.2024 (APHC) 5 relevant portion of the order in the said decision, for ready reference is reproduced hereunder – “15. It is an admitted fact that the science relating to forensic examination of Handwriting, especially in relation to the fixation of the age of the ink, is not perfect. In cases of this nature any reference of a document to the Handwriting Expert just for the purpose of finding out whether the ink was 5 years old at the time of institution of the suit or 3 years old at the time of institution of the suit, is not likely to bring any fruitful result. Interestingly in one of the books relied upon by the learned Judge of the Madras High Court, namely Handwriting Forensics by B.R. Sharma, Chapter 25 contains a Glossary under the title Documenpaedia. In the said chapter, there is an interesting portion relating to INK AGE. This portion reads as follows: INK AGE : Age of the writing can sometime be given in relative terms. Upkeep of the document plays an important role. Ink has been extensively studied to fix the age of the documents. There are two aspects which have been explored. The compositions of inks in common usage have been changing continuously. It was the carbon ink (known as Indian Ink) to start with. It changed to irontannin inks, then to water-soluble dye inks and later to organic solvent inks as for ball pens. New dye inks are coming up continuously. Thin Layer Chromatography (LTC) can easily identify the ink dye even from an ink line without visibly damaging the writing line. High Performance TLC gives better results. The date of induction of a particular ink, therefore can be ascertained with the help of its manufacturer. If a document is purported to be written prior to its induction of the ink, it is obviously false. In some countries data relating to induction of various inks is kept for ready reference. Some inks fade with time. The extent of fading may give some idea about the age of the writing. Inks diffuse in the paper. The extent of diffusion may give some guess about the age of writing. Iron inks become darker in colour with age. The shade of the ink may give some idea of the age of writing. 6 In some countries age marker chemicals, usually radioactive materials, are added to the ink. They indicate the age of the writing. Fresh ink is easily smudged. Older inks do not smudge easily. The ease of smudging may give a rough estimate of the age of the writing. The methods listed above look impressive. But in practice it is seldom that correct age of the document can be determined as there are many variables which affect the changes in the ink. Age markers can give correct age of the writings. However, they are not used in India.” 7) In Velagapudi Kishore Kumar Vs BoppanaVenkata Naga Krishna8 the petitioner / defendant filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the suit promissory note for ascertaining the age of the ink in the pen used for filling up the printed promissory note and the subscription of the signatures on the revenue stamps affixed thereon. The learned Judge after referring to a catena of cases including Kambala Nageswara Rao case (6 supra) was not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Trial Court rejecting the said application. Though, in the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the disputed promissory notes were directed to be sent to Nutron Activation Analysis Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), Mumbai, for determining the age of the signatures, with due respect, this Court is not inclined to give any such direction, more particularly in the light of the reasoning in Polana Jawaharlal Nehru case (3 supra), extracted above. 8CRP No.2 of 2025, dt.05.03.2025 (APHC) 7 8) Further in Dnyaneshwar Eknath Gulhane (5 supra), the learned Judge discussed about the facility available at BARC, Mumbai, and it is apt to extract the relevant portion, for ready reference: “8. As could be seen, the Assistant Director, Document Division, Forensic Science Department, Chennai, the expert in the field, has stated that there is no scientific method available anywhere in the State, more particularly in the Forensic Sciences Department to scientifically assess the age of hand writing and to offer opinion. The expert further stated that there is one institute known as Nutron Activation Analysis, BARC, Mumbai, (which the counsel for the respondent referred to), where there is facility to find out the proximate range of the time, during which the writing would have been made but the opinion is not exact and further the facility is available only to atomic research and not to the documents relating to the prosecution and other litigation. He has firmly stated that the age of writing cannot be found out at all to offer any opinion. 9. This being the position, there is absolutely no justification to have futile attempt to find out the age of the ink on the instrument under question.” 9) Reliance by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the Orders dated 18.06.2025 in I.A.No.333 of 2025 in O.S.No.49 of 2021 is of no avail in the light of the legal position referred to supra. Further, it is not known as to whether all the relevant decisions with reference to ascertaining the age of ink/signatures etc., were brought to the notice of the learned Judge while deciding the said application. Irrespective of raising any objection by the answering respondent / plaintiff, to the application in question, it is incumbent on the part of the Court to consider the relief sought for, by examining all the relevant aspects. Learned Trial Court, on consideration of the order in its entirety, in the considered opinion of this Court, has not committed any 8 illegality in dismissing the application in question. Accordingly, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner are rejected. 10) In the result, the Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 11) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. NINALA JAYASURYA,J Date:22.04.2026 Ssv 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3612 OF 2025 Date:22.04.2026 Ssv