Kandru Udaya Kumari, Vs Koritola Drakshayamma

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topleased to A) Set aside the orders dated and 26.09.2025 passed in I.A. No. 221 of 2025, in O.S. No. 69 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Parchur. B) Direct the trial court to summon authenticated specimen signatures of the petitioner from the concerned authorities, including bank/government departments, and thereafter forward such authenticated signatures along with the disputed promissory note Ex.A1 to the Forensic Science Laboratory for expert comparison under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. Hence it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the above said C.R.P. by setting aside the order Dated 26.09.2025 in I.A. 221 of 2025 in O.S. No. 69 of 2020, on the file of the court of Junior Civil Judge Parchur Prakasham District with direction to said the petition for expert forensic lab

¶15

2

¶16

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to condone the delay of 68 days in resubmitting the above Civil Revision Petition in the interest of justice

¶18

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to Stay all further proceedings in O.S. No. 69 of 2020, on the file of the court of Junior Civil Judge Parchur Prakasham District pending disposal of the C.R.P.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

1.PRATTIPATI SAJJANA RAO

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶23

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

3

¶26

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶27

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 556/2026

¶28

ORDER:-

¶29

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to setting aside the order dated 26.09.2025 in I.A. 221 of 2025 in O.S.No.69 of 2020, on the file of the court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Parchur, Prakasham District.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. As issuance of notices to the respondent is not necessary in this matter, hence notice to the respondent is hereby dispensed with.

¶31

The petitioner herein is defendant and the respondent herein is plaintiff in the suit. For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred as arrayed in the suit.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit is filed for recovery of money basing upon the promissory note said to have been executed in the year 2017 by the petitioner/defendant in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Pending the suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.221 of 2025 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 seeking to send the promissory note dated 06.11.2017 along with the admitted signatures of the ration card for expert opinion to find out that the said promissory note is a forged one or not under which the plaintiff sought for recovery of money. For getting expert opinion, one of the mandatory requirement is to provide an

¶33

4

¶34

admitted signature for comparison in order to ascertain whether the disputed signature of the defendant is genuine or forged one. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner/defendant filed her ration card of the year 2006 for comparison as admitted signature. The learned counsel further submits that even though the petitioner filed/submitted his admitted signature, the Court below erroneously dismissed the application. Hence, this Revision Petition.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record.

¶36

It is an admitted case of the petitioner herein/defendant that the petitioner/defendant filed the ration card of the year 2006 claiming that as admitted signature of petitioner/defendant. Whereas, the alleged execution of the promissory note by the defendant is on 06.11.2017. Therefore, there is a gap of 11 years between the admitted signature and the disputed signature of the petitioner/defendant. It is settled principle of law that for getting an expert opinion or to test the genuinety of the disputed signature, the admitted signature must be within the contemporaneous period i.e., it should be executed within one or two years to the date of promissory note or disputed signature. But in the instance case there is a gap of 11 years and signature of the year 2006 at ration card cannot be a contemporaneous signature, the same cannot be referred for getting expert opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, if refers which may lead to unreasonable, unethical results, which is contrary to very purpose to ascertain the truth. In view of the same, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner on the

¶37

5

¶38

ground that the petitioner/defendant is unable to furnish the reasonable admitted signature in relation to within contemporaneous period, which is mandatory for getting opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, the order of the trial Court is in accordance with the settled principle of law and it does not warrants interference of this Court.

¶39