APHC010273712023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 590/2025 Between:

1. K LAKSHMAN RAO, S/O GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O PLOT NO. 140, FLAT NO. 103, SHIVANI HILL VIEW APARTMENTS, NEAR SYNDICATE BANK, ANJALI GARDEN, MANIKONDA, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, TELANGANA STATE.

...PETITIONER AND

1. B ADDEPUDI SULOCHANAMMA, , W/O JANARDHAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O KOTA PULURU VILLAGE, SULLURUPETA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. HARINATH REDDY SOMA Counsel for the Respondent:

1.

The Court made the following ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the revision petitioner/defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 16.12.2024 passed in I.A.No.453 of 2024 in O.S.No.41 of 2015, on the file of the Court of the learned VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, whereby the interlocutory application filed by the revision petitioner/defendant to send Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 in the suit to the Handwriting Expert for comparison of signatures on the manuscript with the admitted signatures in the account opening form of the revision petitioner/defendant, was dismissed.

2. The revision petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Court below.

3. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.41 of 2015 for recovery of an amount of Rs.16,80,000/- under five promissory notes dated 24.09.2012 for Rs.2,00,000/- each, alleged to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant filed his written statement denying the entire suit transaction and the execution of the five promissory notes. The defendant filed an application in I.A.No.170 of 2024 under Order XVI Rules 1 & 6 and Section 151 CPC to summon the Branch Manager, erstwhile Andhra Bank, presently merged with Union Bank, Manikonda Branch, Hyderabad City, Telangana, for production of documents, i.e., Savings A/C No.156710100033351, withdrawal forms dated 18.10.2012, and manuscript relating to Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. The said application was allowed on 08.04.2024. Consequent to the said order, the defendant filed I.A.No.453 of 2024 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 151 CPC to send the disputed documents, i.e., Ex.A1 to Ex.A5, to the Handwriting Expert for comparison of the alleged signatures and manuscript of the defendant for proper adjudication. The said I.A.No.453 of 2024 was dismissed on 16.12.2024. Aggrieved by the same, this Civil Revision Petition came to be filed.

4. When the present petition came up for hearing on 20.06.2025, this Court has passed the following order:

“…Meanwhile, there shall be interim stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.41 of 2015 on the file of learned VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District, for a period of four (4) weeks….”

Thereafter, the said interim order has been extended from time to time.”

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

6. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant argued that the suit promissory notes are forged documents, and as such, I.A.No.453 of 2024 was filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for sending Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 to the Handwriting Expert for comparison of signatures on the manuscript with the admitted signatures in the account opening form of the revision petitioner/defendant.

7. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff filed O.S.No.41 of 2015, in which the defendant filed a written statement, denying the execution of the promissory notes dated 24.09.2012 or on any other subsequent dates for his business necessities, and also denying issuance of cheques. It is the further case of the defendant that he