Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 939 (AP)

Ankem Krishna Rao v. Devagiri Ram Koti Reddy

2025-08-07

RAVI NATH TILHARI

body2025
ORDER : RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. Heard Sri Rama Chandra Rao Gurram, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.61 of 2024 on the file of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. The suit for recovery of money was filed by the plaintiff/respondent based on the promissory notes dated 21.09.2021 (Ex.A1) and 06.09.2023 (Ex.A2). 3. In the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.544 of 2025 for sending the petitioner’s disputed signatures on those promissory notes for comparison with admitted signatures. 4. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 04.07.2025 on the ground that the documents annexed to the application, for comparison were not contemporaneous documents. It further observed that for sending the documents for comparison, the documents containing the admitted signatures should be of authentic and reliable nature. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that those documents submitted for comparison were the contemporaneous document as they were executed within 2-3 years of the pronotes containing the disputed signatures. 6. This Court finds that those documents photocopy of loan application dated 27.10.2021 and the original agricultural loan receipt dated 30.03.2023 were executed after the promissory note dated 21.09.2021 (Ex.A1) but before the promissory note dated 06.09.2023 (Ex.A2). However, if those documents did not inspire confidence for their authenticity and standard signatures, this court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Trial Court in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. In Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad v. Ravi Surya Prakash , [ 2016(2) ALD 1 (FB)] upon which learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance the following issues were for references: “(a) Are contemporaneous handwritings/signatures always or normally necessary for comparison and report; (b) What is the meaning of “contemporaneous”, and what is the measure of contemporaneity; (c) Why are Examiner of Questioned Documents frequently returning documents sent to them for opinion, to the referring Court for contemporaneous signatures/handwritings? Is current handwriting science/expert protocols in the area incapable of comparing handwritings/signatures without “contemporaneous” models for comparison; whether in all circumstances or only in specific situations; and if in specific situations, what are the range of circumstances where contemporaneous handwritings/signatures required for rendering an opinion?” 8. The Full Bench of this Court answered the reference as follows:- “15. Is current handwriting science/expert protocols in the area incapable of comparing handwritings/signatures without “contemporaneous” models for comparison; whether in all circumstances or only in specific situations; and if in specific situations, what are the range of circumstances where contemporaneous handwritings/signatures required for rendering an opinion?” 8. The Full Bench of this Court answered the reference as follows:- “15. We accordingly answer the reference as under: It is essentially within the judicious discretion of the Court, depending on the individual facts and circumstances of the case before it, to seek or not to seek expert opinion as to the comparison of the disputed handwriting/signature with the admitted handwriting/ signature under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court is however not barred from sending the disputed handwriting/ signature for comparison to an expert merely because the time gap between the admitted handwriting/signature and the disputed handwriting/signature is long. The Court must however endeavour to impress upon the petitioning party that comparison of disputed handwritings/signatures with admitted handwritings/signatures, separated by a time lag of 2 to 3 years, would be desirable so as to facilitate expert comparison in accordance with satisfactory standards. That being said, there can be no hard and fast rule about this aspect and it would ultimately be for the expert concerned to voice his conclusion as to whether the disputed handwriting/ signature and the admitted handwriting/signature are capable of comparison for a viable expert opinion. The view expressed by the Division Bench in Janachaitanya Housing Limited V. Divya Financiers ,{ 2008(4) ALD 339 (DB)} as to the stage of the proceedings when an application can be moved by a party under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, continues to hold the field and there is no necessity for this Full Bench to address that issue.” 9. The Full Bench has also observed that there cannot be any hard and fast rule about this aspect and it is within the judicious discretion of the Court concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case. I do not find exercise by the learned Trial Court as injudicious. 10. I do not find any illegality in the order, impugned. 11. I do not find exercise by the learned Trial Court as injudicious. 10. I do not find any illegality in the order, impugned. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits at this stage that the learned Trial Court observed in para 9 that, the petitioner’s admitted signatures would be available in the registers of SRO, Gannavaram as the SRO Gannavaram would have obtained the signatures of the petitioner at the time of registration of the sale deed dated 10.03.2022 vide Document No.2232 of 2022. But, the same was not filed. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the document vide Doc.No.2232 of 2022 as referred to in para-9 of the order of the Trial Court, a copy of which has been annexed with the CRP at page Nos.38 to 47, could not be filed before learned Trial Court. He submits that liberty may be granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application before the learned Trial Court for comparison of the petitioner’s disputed signatures on the promissory notes, with that document. 13. Considering the request of learned counsel for the petitioner though this petition is being dismissed, liberty is granted to file fresh application for comparison, based on the Document No.2232 of 2022 dated 10.03.2022 which application if filed within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order would be considered in accordance with law with due opportunity of hearing to the other side as well. 14. It is clarified that this Court has not made any observation with respect to that document No.2232 of 2022 dated 10.03.2022, as to whether the same is contemporaneous or not, nor that, disputed signatures be compared with that document. It is for the learned Trial Court to examine if the occasion so arises. 15. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations and directions. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.