THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 715 of 2025

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the

order dated 04.02.2025 in I.A. No. 592 of 2022 in O.S. No. 126 of

2018 passed by the Principal District Judge at Nalgonda.

2. The revision petitioner herein is the defendant in the above

said Suit.

3. The respondent herein filed the subject suit for Recovery of Money as plaintiff vide O.S. No. 126 of 2018 under Order VII Rule 1 r/w Section 26 and Section 151 of Civil procedure Code (for

short ‘CPC’).

4. The petitioner herein had filed the underlying interlocutory application vide I.A. No. 592 of 2022 in the subject suit under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act, 1872) r/w section 151 of CPC for sending the suit promissory note dated 25.06.2016 to the Handwriting Expert, F.S.L., Hyderabad, to determine the age of ink used and for comparison of the disputed

signatures with the petitioner’s admitted signatures, and to obtain an expert report.

5. The Trial Court upon hearing both the parties has dismissed the underlying Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioner observing that the petitioner’s request to determine the age of the ink is inadmissible as it cannot help in establishing whether the document was executed on the alleged date. The Trial also observed that if the document is indeed forged, the same can be disproved by other reliable evidence such as bank records.

6. Aggrieved by the above said order dated. 04.02.2025 the petitioner herein had preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

8. The petitioner contends that the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 29,60,000/- is based on false and baseless allegations; that the petitioner had taken only a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the respondent on 30.09.2016, which was repaid along with an interest amount of Rs. 20,000/-; that at the time of borrowing the said sum, the petitioner issued a blank signed cheque as security but never executed any promissory note, including the one dated 25.06.2016; and that the said promissory note is forged, fabricated and invented for the purpose of litigation. 9. The petitioner contends that his signature was forged on the suit promissory note and that the attesting witnesses are not credible and are merely close associates or loyal supporters of the respondent and thus denied the execution of the document.

10. The petitioner also contends that the expert be directed to examine and determine the age of the ink used in the writings on the said promissory note, in order to assess whether the document was created on or around the purported date; that the alleged disputed signatures appearing on the said promissory note are to be compared with his admitted signatures, with a view to establish the authenticity or otherwise of the document; that the expert opinion is vital for arriving at a just and fair adjudication of the dispute, particularly in light of his categorical denial of execution of the promissory note. The petitioner further contends that unless such scientific analysis and comparison is permitted, he would be seriously prejudiced in the defense of the suit, and that denial of such an opportunity would amount to grave injustice.

11. Per contra, the respondent contends that the present revision petition is not maintainable either on facts or in law inasmuch as the underlying interlocutory application is filed only to delay the proceedings, which are at the stage of final arguments; that the petitioner did not reserve any right to send the document for expert examination in his written statement and the omission to take such a plea at the earliest stage indicates that the application was filed belatedly and lacked bona fides.

12. The respondent further contends that the written statement was filed in July 2019, and the present application under Sec