A party disputing a signature on a document is entitled to seek an expert's opinion for comparison, as forensic science can analyze strokes and patterns despite time gaps between disputed and admitted signatures.

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 allow this CRP by setting aside the Order dated 26-08-2025 Passed in I.A. No. 20 of 2025 in O.S. NO. 361 of 2022 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur and pass

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 grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 361 of 2022 pending on the file of Hon’ble Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition and pass

The Court made the following order:

Assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 26.08.2025 passed in Interlocutory Application No.20 of 2025 in Original Suit No.361 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, the present Civil Revision petition is filed.

The petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.361 of 2022. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed the suit seeking recovery of the suit amount based on a promissory note. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement denying the borrowing of the amount. Subsequently, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.20 of 2024 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to send the Ex.A1-suit promissory note along with the admitted signatures of the petitioner to the Government Handwriting Expert i.e., the Director, A.P Forensic Science Laboratory, Tech Tower Building, 4th Floor, beside DGP Officer, Mangalagiri, Guntur for comparison and expert opinion. In the said suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed counter contending that the defendant herself affixed her signature on the promissory note and the same is genuine. It was further contended that the defendant not furnished any document containing her admitted signature nor provided any particulars regarding such admitted signatures in her petition/affidavit seeking to send suit pronote for comparison, hence, there was no cause of action for filing the said application. The Court below, after hearing both sides, dismissed the said application vide order dated 26.08.2025 on the ground that comparison of the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures obtained at present before the Court, after six years from the date of execution of the promissory note, may not be proper, as there is every possibility of variation in the defendant’s signatures during that period. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

Heard Sri Sai Akash, learned counsel, representing Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice, none represented the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision and contents of the affidavit filed in support of Interlocutory Application filed before the trial Court, contended that the defendant did not execute the suit promissory note and that the same is a rank forgery. He further submitted that the burden lies upon the defendant to establish that the suit promissory note is rank forged. He further submitted that the defendant has no other remedy except to send the suit promissory note along with her admitted signatures obtained in the presence of both counsel in open Court to a handwriting expert for comparison and opinion so as to substantiate her defence. He further submitted that when the genuineness of a document or signature is in dispute, the opinion of a handwriting expert becomes necessary to assist the Court in arriving at a just and correct conclusion. He further submitted that the trial Court ought to have seen that by sending the admitted signatures of the petitioner for comparison with the signatures appearing on Ex.A1 promissory note, the real controversy in