IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

25^th February, 2026 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3562 OF 2024 Between:

Podila Srinivas …Petitioner AND Talluri Hanumantha Rao …Respondent

ORDER

Heard Mr. Tupakula Nikhil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Madiraju Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that I.A.No.6 of 2024 in O.S.No.71 of 2019 on the file of Principal District Judge at Khammam was filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act r/w Section 151 of CPC with a prayer to send the agreement of sale dated 21.04.2012 i.e., Ex.A1 to Forensic Science Laboratory to compare the signature of the petitioner/defendant. However, the Trial Court dismissed the said application, observing that though the petitioner/defendant denied the plaintiff’s case with regard to the signature on Ex.A1 agreement of sale, he had not filed any document containing his contemporaneous signature for comparison with the disputed signature on Ex.A1. It was further observed that, in the absence of filing admitted contemporaneous signature, even if Ex.A1 is forwarded to a handwriting expert at the Forensic Science Laboratory or any other forensic laboratory, no useful purpose would be served. The Trial Court also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in R.G. Ramana Reddy v. Khuresh Estates Private Limited, reported in 2023 (4) ALT 615 (AP), wherein it was held that Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act expressly enables the Court to compare disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether the writing is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court concluded that the petitioner had not made out a case, in view of the above decision to send the suit agreement of sale to a handwriting expert at the Forensic Science Laboratory.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the present I.A. was dismissed only on the ground that there was no document containing his contemporaneous signature for comparison with the disputed signature. However, in the present Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner has disclosed one document, namely, the ration card of the petitioner/defendant, which contains his signature. The said document was not filed before the trial Court.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent did not oppose the same.

5. In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to remand the matter to the trial Court by setting aside the order dated 11.07.2024 passed in I.A.No.6 of 2024 in O.S.No.71 of 2019 on the file of Principal District Judge at Khammam for fresh consideration, taking into account the document, namely, the ration card of the petitioner or any other document containing his signature that may be filed before the trial Court, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and the respondent herein is at liberty to contest the matter.

6. With the above said direction, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Petition, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J Date: 25.02.2026 NIT