IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3499 OF 2025 DATED : 06.01.2026 Between:

Yernam Venkata Rami Reddy ... Petitioner AND Karri Neelavathi ... Respondent

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition (CRP) is filed against the Docket order dt.29.07.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in O.S.No.212 of 2024 (old O.S.No.25 of 2019) on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Sathupally.

2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the suit is filed for recovery of money on the basis of four (4) promissory notes dt.05.01.2018 executed by the respondent/defendant in favour of the petitioner. The suit was renumbered as O.S.No.212 of 2024 and the defendant has filed written statement denying the liability under the alleged promissory notes. It was specifically stated that the promissory notes are false and fabricated.

3. The defendant has filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 in O.S.No.212 of 2024 to send Exs.A.1 to A.4 promissory notes for comparison of the signatures of the defendant with the signatures of her Account Opening Form vide No.6486101003009 of Canara Bank, Kalluru Branch and also her withdrawal forms dt.29.10.2018 and 30.10.2018 to a Handwriting Expert, Government FSL, Hyderabad in the interest of justice.

4. The plaintiff has opposed the same by filing a counter affidavit and it is stated that the plaintiff was examined as P.W.2 who is the scribe of Exs.A.1 to A.4 and in the cross-examination of the defendant, she had admitted her signatures on the promotes. Therefore, the plaintiff stated that the Court is empowered to compare the signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act and there was no need to send those documents for the opinion of the Handwriting Expert. It was further submitted that the documents are not public documents and they are between the bank and the customers and are not open to public like registered documents such as sale deeds etc., and there will not be any authentication or genuineness of the signatures on the said documents and further that the said accounts were opened after 10 months of execution of the promissory notes intentionally. It is submitted that the trial Court, however, allowed the said petition by observing that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff by allowing the petition. Challenging the same, the present CRP is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submissions made in the counter affidavit filed in I.A.No.1 of 2025.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and also the averments in the counter affidavit in the said I.A.

7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the alleged promissory notes are all dated 05.01.2018, whereas the documents which are sought to be accepted and sent for examination are dated 29.10.2018 and 30.10.2018 respectively while the suit was filed in the year 2019. Therefore, the apprehension expressed by the plaintiff that the said account was opened subsequently only to defeat the claim of the plaintiff cannot be ruled out in toto. This Court is also in agreement with the observation of trial Court that the opinion of the Handwriting Expert would be helpful for adjudication of the issues when the defendant has alleged that the promissory notes are false and fabricated. Therefore, the trial Court ought not to have accepted the bank opening and withdrawal forms which are subsequent to the alleged promissory notes. The petitioner/defendant may be directed to furnish copies of her admitted signatures prior to the promissory notes and send all the forms including the documents prior thereto along with the alleged promissory notes for Handwriting Expert opinion. If such documents prior to the promissory notes are not available, then the trial Court may examine the documents by itself and on the basis of evidence, decide the issue in accordance with law.

8. With the above observations, the C