THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4714 & 4719 of 2025

20^TH FEBRUARY, 2026 Between:

Gouru Vihwanadham … Petitioner AND Peruri Venkstehwarlu …Respondent

COMMON ORDER:

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed seeking to allow the revision petitions and set aside the order dated 27.10.2025 in I.A.Nos.59 and 60 of 2025 in O.S.No.153 of 2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Miryalaguda (for short ‘trial Court’).

2. Heard Sri Hari Kishan Kudikala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pasham Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for respondent. Perused the record.

3. Since the parties are one and the same in both the cases, these petitions are disposed of by way of this common order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed I.A. No.60 of 2025 seeking issuance of witness summons to the Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, Rajeev Chowk Branch, to produce the signatures of the petitioner/defendant available in the bank records, such as vouchers, cheques, and specimen signature cards maintained in the petitioner’s account. The petitioner also sought issuance of summons to the Income Tax Officer to produce the signatures of the petitioner/defendant made on the Income Tax Returns for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18, for the purpose of comparison with the disputed signature found on the suit promissory note. It is further submitted that the petitioner also filed I.A. No.59 of 2025 seeking to send Ex.A1, along with the admitted signatures of the petitioner obtained from bank records and Income Tax returns, to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Red Hills, Hyderabad, for expert opinion regarding the genuineness of the signature appearing on the suit promissory note. According to the petitioner, the promissory note relied upon in the suit is a forged document and therefore requires examination by a handwriting expert. However, the trial Court dismissed both the applications.

5. He further submitted that the trial Court ought to have allowed the petition filed by the petitioner to summon the Bank Manager and the Income Tax Authority to produce the original assessment records pertaining to the relevant period, as well as the original cheques and vouchers from the concerned bank relating to the relevant period, for the purpose of comparing the signatures therein with the signature appearing on the suit promissory note by sending the same for expert opinion. It is further submitted that the trial Court erroneously concluded that the petitioner could obtain his admitted signatures by filing an application under the Right to Information Act. He contends that even if such an application was filed, the petitioner would only receive photocopies with attestation and not the original cheques or vouchers issued by the bank. Therefore, the petitioner filed the above petition seeking to summon the Bank Manager and the Income Tax Authority to produce the original documents mentioned above. The petitioner further submits that the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner has specifically denied that the signature on the suit promissory note marked as Ex.A1 is his signature. In such circumstances, obtaining expert opinion becomes necessary to establish his defense and to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is also contended that the signature and writings found on Ex.A1 were forged and fabricated with the assistance of the attestors. Hence, he prays to allow the revision petition and set aside the order dated 27.10.2025 passed in I.A.Nos.59 and 60 of 2025 in O.S.No.153 of 2018 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Miryalaguda.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that when the petitioner himself has denied the signature on the suit promissory note marked as Ex.A1, the question of summoning the Chief Manager of the Bank and the Income Tax Officer does not arise. It is further submitted that the