Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 9637
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Cheemalapati, J
AVADARI SUBBARAO – Appellant
Versus
VANKAYALAPATI RATHANAMMA – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2175/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Medikonda Pranay Venkat Chowdary
For the Respondents: Anjaneya Sarma.M
A request for expert opinion to determine the manufacture date of a revenue stamp should not be rejected solely due to belated filing if it is essential for a just conclusion and causes no prejudice to the other party.
Headnote:The matter involves a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff sought to send a promissory note to the Indian Security Press, Nasik, to determine the year of manufacture of the revenue stamp to counter the defendants' claim that the date was materially altered from 2007 to 2017. The trial court dismissed the application, citing the late stage of proceedings and the sufficiency of existing evidence. The primary issue is whether a request for expert opinion on the manufacture date of a revenue stamp can be rejected solely on the grounds of belated filing. The court reasoned that the request pertains to the stamp's origin, which is distinct from handwriting analysis, and that such evidence is crucial for arriving at a just conclusion and causes no prejudice to the opposing party. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 26.03.2025 passed in I.A. No.92 of 2025 in O.S. No.06 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi.
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 26-03-2025 passed in I. A No 92/2025 in OS.No.06/2021 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the court below to send the promissory note to Indian Security Press, Nasik and pass such
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 120 days in representing the present C.R.P.S.R. and pass such
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of order dated 26.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.92 of 2025 in O.S.No.06 of 2021 on the file on the file of the Senior Civil judge, Darsi and pass such
IA NO: 3 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in OS. No 06/2021 on the file of the Senior Civil judge, Darsi pending disposal of this Civil revision petition and pass such
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. MEDIKONDA PRANAY VENKAT CHOWDARY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. ANJANEYA SARMA.M
The Court made the following order:
Assailing the correctness and legality of the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi in Interlocutory Application No.92 of 2025 in Original Suit No.06 of 2021, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner herein is plaintiff and respondents herein are defendants in O.S.06 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Darsi.
The petitioner herein/plaintiff filed O.S.No.06 of 2021 for recovery of money based on a promissory note, dated 27.12.2017. At the stage of arguments, the petitioner filed I.A.No.92 of 2025, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 151 CPC, duly praying the Court to send Ex.A1-promissory note to the Indian Security Press, Nasik for its opinion regarding the year of manufacture of the revenue stamp affixed on the promissory note. The said application was filed on the ground that the respondents herein/defendants took a stand in their written statement that the promissory note is a materially altered one and that the year ‘2007’ was altered to ‘2017’ by altering the digit ‘0’ before ‘7’ as ‘1’. According to the plaintiff, the promissory note was executed in the year 2017. If Ex.A1 is sent to Indian Security Press for its opinion regarding the year of manufacture of the revenue stamp affixed on the said promissory note, it would be helpful for arriving at a just conclusion.
ii) The said application was opposed by the respondents/defendants denying the allegations and inter alia contending that earlier the respondents herein/defendants filed I.A.No.181 of 2014 seeking to send the promissory note for hand writing expert and the said application was allowed and Ex.A1 promissory note was sent to the hand writing expert at Truth Labs, Hyderabad and an expert report was received opining that the date column at the top of Ex.A1 promissory note was altered by inserting the numerical ‘1’ after erasing ‘0’ before ‘7’, thereby altering the year from 2007 to 2017. It is further contended that both sides have already adduced ample evidence, which is sufficient to decide the dispute between the parties and that even if Ex.A1 is sent to the Indian Security Press, Nasik for determining the year of manufacture of the revenue stamp, no useful purpose will be served, as sufficient evidence is already available on record.
iii) Upon hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the Interlocutory application on the ground that both parties had already adduced ample eviden
