##PAGE1##

2026:APHC:16835

Orders Reserved on : 06.03.2026.

Orders Pronounced on : 22.04.2026.

Orders Uploaded on : 22.04.2026.

APHC010669692025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3209]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3612 OF 2025

Between:

1. D EVALAPALLE SATISH REDDY, S/O. D.VENKATARAMANA REDDY,

AGED 60 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. 19-12-127

BAIRAGIPATTEDA, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. B MANOHAR, S/o. B.Munirathnam, aged about 55 years, Occ

Business, R/o. 19-12-247, 1st Floor, Bairagipatteda, Tirupathi,

Presently R/o. Plot No. 19 A, Sathyam Valley, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar,

Bachpalli Rangareddy District, State of Telangana.

...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. S V MUNI REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. SAI AKASH N

2

2026:APHC:16835

The Court made the following ORDER:

The present Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated

18.11.2025, passed in I.A.No.621 of 2025 in O.S.No.96 of 2021, on the file of

the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tirupati.

2) The petitioner herein is the defendant in the said suit. The respondent-

plaintiff filed O.S.No.96 of 2021 for recovery of an amount of Rs.36,06,666/-

from the petitioner-defendant, on the strength of pronote. In the written

statement, a plea that the suit pronote is forged and fabricated was taken.

The petitioner / defendant filed the above said I.A., under Section 45 of the

Indian Evidence Act to send the suit pronote dated 15.12.2019 along with his

admitted signatures for opinion of an expert and the same came to be rejected

by the impugned order.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner made his submissions to impress

upon the Court that the order under revision was passed without considering

the matter in its correct perspective. He submits that the learned Trial Court

committed an error in exercising its jurisdiction and rejecting the application in

question. He submits that a specific plea was taken in the written statement

disputing the signature on the suit pronote (Ex.A1), and in the said

circumstances, the disputed documents ought to have been referred for the

opinion of the experts. He submits that the opinion of the expert would aid the

Court in rendering complete justice and in fact, no prejudice would be caused

to the respondent/plaintiff. In the light of the decisions in G.V.Rami Reddy

3

Vs. D. Mohan Raju, 12019 (2) ALD 481 (AP)and Namineni Audi Seshaiah Vs. Numburu Mohan

Rao, 22018 (6) ALD 751, the I.A. in question deserves to be allowed. He has also drawn the

attention of this Court to the material filed along with a Memo and addressed

arguments with reference to the same.

4) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent made

submissions relying on the averments made in the written statement filed by

the petitioner / defendant. He submits that it is the specific case of the

petitioner / defendant that the signatures were taken / obtained on blank

promissory notes, thus, the signatures are not in dispute. He submits that in

view of the admission made by the petitioner / defendant in the written

statement, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the application is filed

only for the purpose of the delaying the matter. He further submits that so far

as the relief sought for in the I.A., in question i.e., sending the disputed

documents for determining the age of the ink used for petitioner/defendant’s

signature in the pronote and the signatures of the attestors and scribe

thereon, he submits that a learned Judge in Polana Jawaharlal Nehru Vs

MaddiralaPrabhakara Reddy, 32017 SCC OnLineHyd 74, elaborately considered the issue with regard

to determination of the age of the ink and was not inclined to interfere with the

order of the learned Trial Court dismissing the application. He also placed

reliance on the decision of the learned Judge of this Court in Velagapudi

Kishore Kumar Vs Boppan