Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 908
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J.
Nallavula Vijaya Lakshmi and others – Petitioners
Versus
Bommineni Venkata Ramana - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No: 2862 of 2024
Decided On : 12-03-2025
For the Petitioner: Yadavalli Ramesh
For the Respondent: K Mohan Rami Reddy
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.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Application dismissed for sending promissory note for expert opinion due to lack of contemporary documents - The trial Court found no merit in the application as the gap between signatures was six years, violating the principle established in Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad Vs. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu - The definition of contemporaneous requires closer temporal proximity of two to three years for document comparisons. (Paras 2, 5)
(B) Expert Opinion - The court reiterated that expert opinion can be sought at a belated stage only if supported by relevant and timely documentation - The trial Court's dismissal was valid given the six-year gap between materials. (Paras 3, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, defendants in a money recovery suit, sought an expert opinion comparing signatures on a promissory note after the demise of the sole defendant. Their application was denied for not providing contemporary documents, as required for signature comparison.
Findings of Court:
The trial Court's conclusion was upheld as valid, emphasizing the importance of evidence through contemporaneous documentation in signature verification.
Issues: The primary issue was the validity of the application to send the promissory note for expert opinion without the requisite contemporary documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that for signature comparison, documents must be contemporaneous, ideally having a gap of two to three years, which was not met in this case, validating the trial Court's decision.
Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. defendants are petitioners intending to recover money. (Para 1) |
| 2. application for expert opinion on signatures dismissed. (Para 2) |
| 3. judgment's applicability to current facts debated. (Para 3) |
| 4. criteria for contemporaneity established. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 5. civil revision petition dismissed with no costs. (Para 6) |
ORDER :
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J.
The petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.57 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, which is filed for recovery of money basing upon the promissory note.
2. After demise of the sole defendant/1st respondent, the legal heirs of the deceased defendant filed an application in I.A.No.387 of 2024 in O.S.No.57 of 2018 to send promissory note for expert opinion for comparison with the admitted signatures. The trial Court has dismissed the said application on the ground that the defendants have not filed any contemporary documents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of this Court in Bipili Kesava Rao vs. Raghunath Patnaik , [ 2023 Supreme (Online)(AP) 21984 ] for the proposition that the document can be sent at the belated stage. But the facts in the said judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case as the issue before the trial Court is that the defendants have not filed any contemporary documents to compare the signatures of the suit document i.e., Ex.A1 promissory note.
4. The proposition in the judgment of the composite High Court in Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad Vs. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu and others , [AIR 2016 Hyderabad 118 Full Bench] is that “What is the meaning of contemporaneous; and what is the measure of contemporaneity”, held as hereunder:
"b) What is the meaning of contemporaneous; and what is the measure of contemporaneity.
Comment: Contemporaneous means occurrence at same period of time. No specific measure could be assigned to the element of contemporaneity. One of the famous authors in the field of examination of documents, Ordway Hilton, in his famous book Scientific Examination of Questioned Documents, states that material written two or three years before or after the disputed writing serve as satisfactory standards and the same is enunciated in page 11 of Annexure enclosed."
5. According to the judgment of the full Bench in Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad’s case (referred supra), there should be a two or three year gap between contemporaneous document, but in this case, there is six years gap. The signature may alter over time even though in the present case, it has not been changed purposefully. Consequently, the trial Court conclusions in the contested order are valid and hence, this Court is hesitate to grant any kind of relief.
6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
