The examination of signatures under Section 72 does not validate admissibility, which remains contingent on comprehensive legal evaluation.

ORDER

I have heard Mr.M.S.Srinivasa Iyengar, learned Senior Counsel, on behalf of Mr.Kothacheruvu Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. Md.Imran Khan, learned Senior Counsel, on behalf of Mr.Khamar Kiran Kantamneni, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner/defendant No.1 aggrieved by the order dated 18.06.2025 passed in I.A.No.115 of 2025 in O.S.No.1 of 2021 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.

3. The revision petitioner is respondent No.1/defendant No.1 in I.A. No.115 of 2025 in O.S. No.1 of 2021. The said Interlocutory Application was filed by plaintiff No.2 (respondent No.1 herein) under Section 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (hereinafter ‘the BSA ’), seeking a direction to compare the signatures appearing on Ex.A-1/PARIKATTU (partition deed) dated 23.08.2018, with the admitted signature of respondent/defendant No.1 as found in the certified copy of the registered gift settlement deed dated 24.12.2020, marked as Ex.B-82.

4. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the suit, O.S. No.1 of 2021, was instituted for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties, along with a prayer for allotment of exclusive shares with metes and bounds and a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the properties during pendency of the proceedings. During trial, respondent No.1 introduced the partition deed (Ex.A-1). The petitioner objected to its marking on the ground of insufficiency of stamp duty and want of registration. The trial Court, by order dated 20.03.2024 in I.A. No.97 of 2024, noted that the document had been impounded and requisite stamp duty with penalty was collected, and therefore, permitted its use for collateral purposes. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a civil revision petition before this Court. This Court, upon examining the matter, held that the document was unregistered, incomplete since all parties had not signed it, and therefore, inadmissible in evidence. Consequently, the order of the trial Court receiving and marking the document was set aside.

5. Thereafter, the respondents/plaintiffs preferred Special Leave Appeal, SLA (C) No.11602 of 2024, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. By order dated 24.05.2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the disputed partition deed could be given a tentative marking, leaving it open to both parties to raise all contentions on its admissibility at the stage of final hearing of the suit. Subsequent to this order, the present impugned petition was filed before the trial Court seeking comparison of signatures.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in clear terms, directed that the question of admissibility of the document must be considered only at the stage of final adjudication. However, by filing the present petition under Section 72 of the BSA , the respondents are attempting to indirectly secure an admission of the document’s authenticity by initiating comparison of signatures, thereby circumventing the Supreme Court’s order. It is argued that permitting such comparison at this stage would amount to treating the document as admitted in evidence, which stands contrary to the Supreme Court’s directions. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that comparison of signatures itself constitutes adducing of evidence, and once undertaken, it effectively results in the document being read