APHC010224452026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the seventh day of August, two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.1331 Between: Gowarammagari Venkatesu, S/o Appodappa, aged about 86 years, R/o. Kothacheruvu village and mandal, Sri Sathya Sai district. and A. Chalapathi, S/o. A.Sandaiah R/o Kothacheruvu village and mandal, Sri Sathya Sai district. Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Sudeepthi Potluri Counsel for the respondent: 1. Seshadri Golla The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the seventh day of August, two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.1331 of 2026 Gowarammagari Venkatesu, S/o Appodappa, aged about 86 years, R/o. Kothacheruvu village and mandal, Sri Sathya Sai district. …..Petitioner A. Chalapathi, S/o. A.Sandaiah, aged about 58 years, Hindu Teacher, R/o Kothacheruvu village and mandal, Sri Sathya Sai district. ….Respondent etitioner: espondent: The Court made the following: [3311] Friday, the seventh day of August, two thousand and twenty six Gowarammagari Venkatesu, S/o Appodappa, aged about 86 years, …..Petitioner , aged about 58 years, Hindu Teacher, ….Respondent APHC010224442026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the seventh day of August, two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.1373 Between: Gowarammagari Venkatesu, S/o Appodappa, aged about 86 years, R/o. Kothacheruvu village and mandal, Sri Sathya Sai district. and A. Chalapathi, S/o. A.Sandaiah R/o Kothacheruvu village and mandal, Sri Sathya Sai district. Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Sudeepthi Potluri Counsel for the respondent: 1. Seshadri Golla The Court made the following: 2 C.R.P.Nos.1331 & 1373 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the seventh day of August, two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.1373 of 2026 Gowarammagari Venkatesu, S/o Appodappa, aged about 86 years, R/o. Kothacheruvu village and mandal, Sri Sathya Sai district. …..Petitioner A. Chalapathi, S/o. A.Sandaiah, aged about 58 years, Hindu Teacher, R/o Kothacheruvu village and mandal, Sri Sathya Sai district. ….Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Counsel for the respondent: The Court made the following: BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.1331 & 1373 of 2026 [3311] Friday, the seventh day of August, two thousand and twenty six Gowarammagari Venkatesu, S/o Appodappa, aged about 86 years, …..Petitioner , aged about 58 years, Hindu Teacher, ….Respondent 3 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.1331 & 1373 of 2026 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P. No. 1331 of 2026 was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 13.03.2026, dismissing I.A.No.432 of 2025 in O.S.No.44 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Penukonda, filed by the petitioner / defendant under Order XIII, Rule 4 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to mark photostat copies of the pronotes, dated 08.08.2015, 15.09.2015 and 24.09.2015 as exhibits in evidence on the side of the defendant during examination of D.W.1. 2. C.R.P. No. 1373 of 2026 was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 13.03.2026, dismissing I.A.No.65 of 2026 in O.S.No.44 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Penukonda, filed by the petitioner / defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Order XXVI Rule 10 and Section 151 C.P.C. to send a small book containing the signatures and writings of the plaintiff along with the four suit promissory notes to a handwriting expert to compare with admitted signatures of the plaintiff in plaint, chief examination affidavit and vakalat, along with the contemporaneous documents of the plaintiff, if any, and to send his report. 3. Since both these revisions arise out of the orders passed in interlocutory applications filed in the same suit and as the parties are also same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these revisions by way of a common order. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.1331 & 1373 of 2026 C.R.P. No.1373 of 2026:- 5. The respondent / plaintiff filed the suit against the petitioner / defendant for recovery of money based on the following promissory notes with the allegation that the petitioner / defendant borrowed various amounts from the plaintiff on different dates and executed four promissory notes agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, as shown below:- Sl. No. Amount borrowed date Promissory note 1 1,00,000/- 08.08.2015 ‘A’ 2 50,000/- 15.09.2015 ‘B’ 3 1,00,000/- 24.09.2015 ‘C’ 4 4,00,000/- 25.05.2016 ‘D’ b. The suit was resisted by filing written statement of the defendant denying the whole transaction including execution of the promissory notes. It is the further case of the defendant that the plaintiff is a teacher and also doing money lending business and running chits and thus, the defendant became a member of the chit run by the plaintiff and in that context, the plaintiff obtained signatures of the defendant on five (5) empty promissory notes while taking chit amount, as it was common practice of the plaintiff. The defendant further pleaded that after completion of the chit, he demanded the plaintiff to return the signed promissory notes which were taken as security, but the plaintiff did not return them when they were traced and that the words of the plaintiff were believed and kept silent as he is a close relative of the defendant. But, the plaintiff, misusing them due to misunderstanding between the plaintiff and the defendant, filed the suit. It is further stated that a 5 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.1331 & 1373 of 2026 complaint was lodged with the police of Kothacheruvu upon which the police called and reprimanded him and therefore, the plaintiff promised to return the empty promissory notes, but failed to do so and that the photostat copy of the report given to the police available with the defendant was filed along with the written statement. 6. Pending the suit, the petition in I.A. No. 65 of 2026 was filed contending that small book containing the handwriting and signatures of the plaintiff available with the defendant to be compared with the signatures and handwriting of the plaintiff on the plaint, chief examination affidavit and vakalat along with the signatures on contemporaneous documents of the plaintiff, if any. b. The petition was resisted by filing a counter stating briefly as follows: The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money under suit promissory notes. Though the defendant had taken a plea that the transaction of promissory notes had arosen during chit transaction, he did not file any documents to substantiate his plea nor did even confront P.W.1 with the alleged note book or any other document in the cross- examination of P.W.1. The defendant filed a petition to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination. The said petition was dismissed. As against the order, the defendant filed a revision petition in C.R.P. No. 163 of 2021 before this High Court and the same was allowed with a condition to deposit Rs.500/- on or before 05.08.2019. But, the defendant did not comply with the order and now came up with the present petition to send the document to handwriting expert. There are no bona fides to allow the petition. The petition is devoid of merit and not maintainable. 6 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.1331 & 1373 of 2026 7. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that the person whose handwriting is available in the small book is not the person who scribed the promissory notes and therefore, no purpose would be served. 8. Firstly, it is to be seen that when the petitioner filed a petition seeking similar relief in I.A. No.679 of 2017, the petitioner could have asked this relief as well. It is only after prolonged proceedings in the suit, now again, for the similar relief, this application was filed. The reliefs which can be asked together shall be asked at the same time and they cannot be asked one after the other. 9. The contents of the book could have been tendered in cross- examination of P.W.1. It is not known whether such an effort was made or not. Moreover, Court can also independently examine the disputed handwriting with comparable material available on file. Therefore, there is no merit seen to allow the petition or to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, C.R.P.No.1373 of 2026 is dismissed. C.R.P.No.1331 of 2026: 11. By virtue of I.A.No.432 of 2025, the petitioner seeks to file alleged photostat copies of the suit promissory notes as secondary evidence. The relief sought by the petitioner in I.A.No.432 of 2025 is not covered by Order XIII, Rule-4 C.P.C. which deals with endorsements on documents admitted in evidence. Since these documents were not filed along with the written statement and now the petitioner / defendant proposed to file them, necessary leave shall be sought under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) C.P.C. It is settled law that if the relief can be legally 7 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.1331 & 1373 of 2026 granted, misquoting of provision is not a bar. When such a relief is sought, the petitioner must seek leave of the Court to receive documents in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. The rule does not prescribe any guidelines for granting leave. However, the discretion of the Court shall be prudently exercised by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of each case. The petitioner did not assign any reason as to why he could not file the proposed documents along with the written statement. As rightly observed by the trial Court, there is no reference, in the written statement, that the petitioner had taken photostat copies of the blank promissory notes when he delivered the originals to the plaintiff for security purpose, nor did he file them along with the written statement. Moreover, in the affidavit, he did not state any tenable reason as to why they could not be filed along with the written statement. 12. Insofar as the secondary evidence is concerned, the trial Court observed that since originals are available with the Court, secondary evidence cannot be taken. To prove that the original is not genuine, secondary evidence is required to be produced. But, in the present case, there is no certainty that the documents proposed to be filed were taken from the original. The photostat copy taken from the original alone can be treated as secondary evidence of the original. For the above reasons, there is no merit in the petition. There is no ground to interfere with the order of the trial Court. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. 8 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.1331 & 1373 of 2026 13. In the result, both the revision petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt. 07.08.2026 RAR Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No