APHC010523392024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3299]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2957/2024 Between:

Pentakota Janaki ...PETITIONER AND Bora Srinivasa Reddy ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. P RAMJI Counsel for the Respondent:

1.

The Court made the following:

ORDER :

Heard Sri P.Ramji, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1648 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

3. The suit has been filed against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of amount on the strength of promissory note, dated 21.03.2021 alleged to have been executed by the petitioner/defendant. The petitioner denied the execution of the promissory note. He filed I.A.No.494 of 2023 in O.S.No.1648 of 2022 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 (in short „the Act‟) to send Ex.A1-promissory note to the handwriting expert along with admitted signatures of the defendant to be taken in the open Court for comparison in the interest of justice.

4. I.A.No.494 of 2023 was allowed, by order, dated

29.11.2023 in the following terms :

“10. In the result, this petition is allowed without costs. Hereby directed the petitioner/defendant shall present and give specimen signatures in the open Court on bunch of two white papers in the presence of the both the counsels and also to cause produce her contemporaneous admitted genuine signatures for the year 2021-2022 within one week, if the petitioner/defendant will fail to appear and to produce his contemporaneous admitted signatures, the petition shall stands dismissed.”

5. The petitioner opened in bank a new account and obtained her signatures on the opening form on 17.11.2022. He filed I.A.No.62 of 2024 in the suit and filed the account opening form application, dated 17.11.2022, to issue summons to the Branch Manager, Bandhan Bank, Pendurthi Branch, Visakhapatnam for production of savings bank account opening form, so as to enable the petitioner to send the same to the handwriting expert for comparison.

6. The learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge dismissed the petition, by order, dated 12.08.2024.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application ought to have been allowed. The Court was not barred from sending the disputed signatures on the promissory note for comparison to an expert with the petitioner‟s admitted signatures on the application form, dated 17.11.2022. He submits that the time gap between the disputed signatures on the promissory note and the admitted signatures on the application form, dated 17.11.2022 is less than two years and consequently, it was desirable to allow the application, but the learned Court illegally dismissed the said application form.

8. The learned counsel placed reliance in the following cases :

1. P.Padmanabhaiah V. G.Srinivasa Rao

2. Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad V. Ravi Surya Prakash and others

1 (2017) 1 ALT 710

2 2016 (2) ALD 1 (FB)

3. Pulipaka Rasgana V. Yarra Anuradha Naidu and others

9. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record.

10. The learned Court observed that the bank account opening application/form was dated 17.11.2022. The promissory note date was 21.03.2021. The suit was filed in the year 2022. The summons were issued to the petitioner/defendant and they were served on 07.11.2022. The learned Court therefore observed that the bank opening form/application was after the date of the receipt of the summons. The petitioner, therefore, had the knowledge about the filing of the suit, basing on the promissory note, and had also received the copy of the suit promissory note. So, there was every possibility for the defendant to change his signatures, in the account opening form, dated 17.11.2022. The learned Court was of the view that the signatures, of the de