Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI
Ankem Krishna Rao – Appellant
Versus
Devagiri Ram Koti Reddy – Respondent
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 t
Judicial discretion governs the decision to seek expert opinion for handwriting comparison under the Indian Evidence Act, without strict adherence to contemporaneity of documents.
The discretion of the court to seek expert opinion on disputed signatures is upheld, regardless of time gaps between signatures on different documents.
For signature comparison in legal disputes, contemporaneous documents must be provided, ideally with a gap of two to three years; failure to do so warrants application dismissal.
The time gap between admitted and disputed documents need not be within three years for signature comparison, and the court should consider the defendant's plea in the written statement when deciding....
The validity of handwriting expert opinions in signature verification hinges on the availability of reliable, contemporaneous signatures from the defendants for comparison.
The court determined that signatures for comparison must be within one to three years of disputed signatures, ruling that the lack of contemporaneous signatures constitutes an abuse of process.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
