APHC010290902025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

Thursday, the sixth day of November two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.1441 of 2025 Between:

M. Eswaraiah ...Petitioner and N. Raghavendra Reddy ...Respondent Counsel for the petitioner:

1. G. Sravan Kumar Counsel for the respondent:

1. Anand Naidu Mamidi The Court made the following:

ORDER

This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 03.04.2025, dismissing the petition in I.A.No.261 of 2024 in O.S.No.55 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tadipatri, filed by the defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to send the two promissory notes, dated 13.09.2018, marked as exhibits A1 and A2 to a handwriting expert for opinion on the signatures of the executant thereon with the signature on the original sale deed, dated 05.08.2016, bearing document No.4487/2016 and to ascertain the material alteration in the year portion on exhibits A1 and A2.

2. The respondent / plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner / defendant for recovery of the amount based on exhibits A1 and A2. The defendant filed a written statement denying the suit claim and further specifically pleading that he did not heed the request of the plaintiff, who is the follower of the Telugu Desam Party in Iguduru village, to join his group as the defendant is a reputed person in his community and has more number of followers and further, the parents of the plaintiff previously worked as the panchayat sarpanches of Iguduru and that the plaintiff bore grudge in that context and got created exhibits A1 and A2 by forging the signatures of the defendant with the help of scribe and attestors as the plaintiff is aware of the signatures of the defendant. It was also stated that both the documents were materially altered. He stated in the written statement that he reserves his right to get his documents executed by the expert whenever necessity arises.

3. In the above context, the defendant filed I.A.No.261 of 2024. The petition was opposed by filing counter stating that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner filed the petition without producing the documents having contemporaneous standard signature of the year 2018 and that filing the petition is a misuse and abuse of the provisions of law. It is further contended that the petition was filed just to prolong the litigation and prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

4. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition observing that it was filed at a belated stage and further the opinion of an expert is only a corroborative and not substantive evidence.

5. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is necessary to seek the opinion of an expert to prove the defence in the written statement and that the petition was filed after completion of the evidence of the plaintiff as it would be premature to file the petition before evidence of the plaintiff since there is possibility of admission being made by the witnesses for the plaintiff to prove the defence. He further submitted that an application seeking opinion of an expert can be filed at any stage of the suit and therefore, the trial Court was in error in dismissing the petition on the ground of delay. He further submitted that though the opinion of an expert is corroborative evidence and Court has jurisdiction to examine the disputed signature or alteration made in a document, it is always desirable that opinion of an expert in the field is considered before taking any opinion by Court individually appreciating the evidence.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition. He further submitted that since the defence is know