APHC010541802024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3206]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3197/2024 Between:

Gudavalli Babu Rao ...PETITIONER AND Thota Appaiah ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. M V S ANIL KUMAR R Counsel for the Respondent:

1. A K KISHORE REDDY The Court made the following Order:

The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.74 of 2019 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, against the petitioner herein, for recovery of an amount of Rs.14,84,981/-, on the basis of certain pronotes which have been marked as Exs.A1 to A5.

2. The trial Court allowed the suit by a Judgment and decree, dated

08.08.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein moved A.S.No.14 of 2023. During the pendency of this appeal, the petitioner moved I.A.No.164 of

2024, under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for comparison of the signatures on the pronotes, marked as Exs.A1 to A5, with certain signatures of the petitioner, which were marked as Exs.A6 to A18, by the trial Court. 3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court, by an order dated 05.11.2024. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Sri M.V.S. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had disputed the signatures on Exs.A1 to A5 from the very inception of the case and that the cross examination of the witnesses of the respondent, had been conducted by the petitioner, on this basis. The learned counsel would submit that in such circumstances, there is every need for comparison of the signatures by an expert. The learned counsel contends that such comparison would assist the Court in ascertaining whether the signatures on Exs.A1 to A5 are the signatures of the petitioner or not. The learned counsel would submit that the decision of the Appellate Court, in rejecting such a request, is clearly not in the interest of administration of justice.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also rely upon the Judgment of a Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad vs Ravi Surya Prakash Babu (died) per L.Rs. and Others, 2016 (2) ALT 248 (F.B). In this Judgment, the issue came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is whether disputed handwriting/signatures could be sent to a handwriting expert for opinion, after comparison with admitted signatures, even when there is a gap of considerable time. The Full Bench, after reviewing the law, had answered the reference in the following terms:

It is essentially within the judicious discretion of the Court, depending on the individual facts and circumstances of the case before it, to seek or not to seek expert opinion as to the comparison of the disputed handwriting/signature with the admitted handwriting/ signature under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court is however not barred from sending the disputed handwriting/ signature for comparison to an expert merely because the time gap between the admitted handwriting/signature and the disputed handwriting/signature is long. The Court must however endeavour to impress upon the petitioning party that comparison of disputed handwritings/signatures with admitted handwritings/signatures, separated by a time lag of 2 to 3 years, would be desirable so as to facilitate expert comparison in accordance with satisfactory standards. That being said, there can be no hard and fast rule about this aspect and it would ultimately be for the expert concerned to voice his conclusion as to whether the disputed handwriting/ signature and the admitted handwriting/signature are capable of comparison for a viable expert opinion. The view expressed by the Divi