IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2582 OF 2025 DATED : _06.01.2026 Between:

M/s New Era Educational Society rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent, New Era High School, Mamata Hospital Road, Khammam District and another ... Petitioners AND Smt. V. Saraswathi and 5 others ... Respondents

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition (CRP) is filed against the order of the Principal District Judge at Khammam dt.01.07.2025 in I.A.No.14 of

2025 in O.S.No.81 of 2018.

2. The suit was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,00,76,000/-. The petitioners herein are defendants 1 and 3 in the suit. The defendants filed I.A.No.1 of 2021 in O.S.No.81 of 2018 for sending the signatures of the petitioners to a Handwriting Expert to form an opinion. The plaintiff/1^st respondent opposed the same by filing a counter stating that it is necessary that the signatures contemporaneous to the disputed signatures be sent for comparison and that the petition is vague and superfluous and that the whole exercise is of no avail in view of the inconclusiveness of such evidence and it only leads to wastage of the precious time of the Court. However, the trial Court allowed the said petition and challenging the same, the petitioners herein along with others filed C.R.P.No.2426 of 2022. This Court, vide its order dt.25.09.2023, observed that the Court below has to direct to send the signatures in Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 along with the contemporaneous signatures of the parties but not the present signatures for comparison. Accordingly, the order dt.30.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in O.S.No.81 of 2018 was set aside and the Principal District Judge, Khammam was directed to send the signatures of Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 along with the contemporaneous signatures of the defendants to a Handwriting Expert for comparison of the signatures. It is stated that in compliance therewith, the learned Principal District Judge, Khammam was supposed to send the original documents of Ex.A.2 dt.10.06.2013 and Ex.A.3 dt.18.01.2013 along with contemporaneous admitted signatures to a Handwriting Expert. Instead, he has sent Exs.A.2 and A.3 dt.10.06.2013 and 18.01.2013 respectively along with the present day signatures, i.e., 09.01.2025 of the revision petitioner No.2 obtained in the open Court and the photocopies of the signatures of respondent No.2/defendant No.2 (died) to the Handwriting Expert and the Handwriting Expert has given opinion in File No.DCV/09/2025 dt.07.02.2025, against which the revision petitioners have taken objection by filing I.A.No.14 of 2025. The said petition has been dismissed vide orders dt.01.07.2025 and against the same, the present CRP is filed.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the signatures obtained by the learned Principal District Judge, Khammam for comparison are not contemporaneous signatures to Exs.A.2 and A.3, but are the current signatures and therefore, the opinion of the Handwriting Expert on such evidence should not be considered and that the impugned order passed by the Principal District Judge, Khammam is against the spirit and object of the order of this Court in C.R.P.No.2426 of 2022 dt.25.09.2023. It is further submitted that instead of sending the original documents of Exs.A1 and A4 for comparison, the photocopies were sent, which is not permissible in law.

It is further submitted that in terms of Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act (Sections 39(1) and 72 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), disputed signatures should not only be compared with the contemporaneous signatures but those contemporaneous signatures should be admitted signatures of the concerned party as well, and unless the signatures are admitted signatures, they cannot be allowed to be compared. It is submitted that the trial Court failed to consider the material produced by the revision petitioners, i.e., the report issued by the Truth Labs dt