Baddam Ram Reddy Vs Kandula Arun Kumar

¶1

¶2

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

MONDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY^{OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYFIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEK.LAKSHMAN}

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION^{NO:1272OF 2025}

¶8

Petition under Article 227 of^{lhe constitution of lndia against the orderdated} 05-03-2025^{passedin LA.No.341 of 2024 in O.S.No.1 25 of 2O18 on thefi le of the} Court of the Principal Senior^{Civil Judge at Karimnagar.}

¶9

Between:

¶10

Baddam Ram Reddy,^{S/o Raghava Reddy,aged about 68. years,Occ.} Agriculture, R/o.Chopfoadand,i^{Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District'}

¶11

...PETITIONER/ PETITIONER/DEFENDANT

¶12

AND

¶13

Kandula Arun Kumar,^{S/o.Surya Rao' aged about40years' Occ' Advocate,} Clo H tto.to-+-64i1 , Bank^{Colbny, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District'}

¶14

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶16

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedan} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,the High courtmaybe pleasedto g_rant} stayof all further^{proceedings in o.s.No125 of 2018 on the file of the courtof the} erincipat Senior^{iavilJudge at Karimnnar,Karimnagar District,pending disposal of} the above Revision Petition

¶17

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRI VADLAKONDARAVI KUMAR REDDY}

¶18

Counsel for the^{Respondent: SRI POCHAIAH DORISHETTI}

¶19

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶20

)

¶21

HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE^{K. LAKSHMAN}

¶22

CIVIL REVI^{SION PETITION No.l272 0F 2025}

¶23

OR-DER:

¶24

Heard Mr.^{Ravikumar Vadlakonda, Iearned counsel for the} petitioner and Mr.^{Pochaiah Dorishetti,learned counscl for the} respondent.

¶25

This revision^{is filed chatlcnging the order dated 05'03'2025} passed by Principal^{Senior Civil Judgc' Karimnagarin I A No 341 of} 2024 in O.S.^{No.125of 2018 dismissing the petition filed under} Section - 45 ofthe^{Indian Evidence Act, t872 (for short'Act'1872')'}

¶26

The petitioner^{hereinis thc soledefendant in 0 S No l25 of} 2018, while the^{respondentherein is the plaintiff' The plaintifffiled} the suit vide^{O.S. No.125of 2018against the petitioner herein -} defendant for^{recovery of Rs.6.88,000/- with interest(q 24yo per} annum thereon from^{the date ol suit tilt realization based on} promissory note dated^{15.07.20t 5 along with receipt allegedto have} executed by the^{petitionerherein.}

¶27

During the^{course of cross-examinationof PW I (l'laintiff),} the defendant's^{counsel confrontedcopiesofreceiptdalctl 22.11.201'1} issued by the^{ptaintiff to the defendantand memorandum of}

¶28

2

¶29

KL, J CRP No.l272 of2025

¶30

understanding, dated, 2l .10.2014 drafted and written by the plaintiff in his own writing executed among the parties to the suit and son_in_law of the defendant, and the same were denied by the plaintiff However the said documents were marked as Exs.Bl and 82 through petitioner - defendant during the course of his evidence. At that stage, the dcfendant filed an Interlocurory Application vide I.A. No.341 of 2024 in O.S.No. 125 of 201 g under Secrion _ 45 of the Act, I g72 to send Exs.Bl and 82 along with the admitted hand_writing of the plaintiff or to direct him to attend before the Court to take his hand_writing and srgnatures to send the same to the handwriting Expert for comparison on the ground that the hand_writings on Exs.Bl and ts2 are of the plaintiff and to prove the same, it is required to send them to the handwriting expen lor comparison.

¶31

The respondent _ plaintiff opposed the said petition contending that there is no refbrence with regard to Exs.tsr and 82 in the written sEtement and, therefore, the same cannot be sent for expert's opinion

¶32

After hearing both sides, vide order d,ated 05.03.2025, leamed trial Court dismissed the said application (I.A No.34l of

¶33

3

¶34

KI-. J CRP No I272^ot2025

¶35

)

¶36

holding^{that the contents of Ex.B2 are contrary to the pleadings} in the written^{statementand that there is no pleadingin the writtcn} statement^{with regardto Exs.Bl and 82 and, therefore' it is not} necessary^{to sendthem to handrvriting expert'}

¶37

Challenging^{the said order, dated 05'03'2024 in I'A'No341} of 2024. the^{petitioner - defendant filed the present revision'}

¶38

Mr. Ravikumar^{Vadlakonda, learned counsellor the} petitioner - defendant^{wouldsubmit that no prejudicewould be caused} to the plaintiff if^{Exs.BIand. 82 are sent to the handwriting expctl'} Though there is^{no refelence with regard to Exs B I and 82 in the} written statement,^{thesamewere confrontedto PW'1 duringcross-} examination. Unless^{Exs.Bl and 82 are sent to hand-writingexpert'} the petitioner^{wilt not be in a position to prove his casethat the subject} promissory note was^{givenby him to the plaintiff for securiry purpose'} Therefore, the triat^{Courterredin dismissingthe petition}

¶39

On the other^{hand, Mr. PochaiahDorishetti,leamed counsel} for the respondent^{would contend that the petitionerfiled the present} petition at the^{belated stage with an intention to drag on the} proceedings. The^{petitioner did not plead in his writtenstatement with}

¶40

:.Jt:)_ii

¶41

4

¶42

KI-, J CRP No 1272 of2025

¶43

regard ro existence of Exs.B I and 82, nor filed along with written statement and, therefore, he has not laid foundation to seek the relief under Section - 45 of the Act, 1972. Considering alt the said aspects, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition vrde impugred order and there is no error in it.

¶44

In view of the aforesaid rival submissions and perusal of record would reveal that the respondent - plaintilf filed the suit vide O.S. No.l25 of2018 against rhe petitioner _ defendant for recovery of Rs.6,88,000/- based on,Ex.AI - promissory note dated 15.07.2015 said to have executed by the petitioner in favour ofthe respondent. In the said suit, it is atleged by the respondenr that the petitioner and his son-in-law purchased house site plot near Apollo Reach Hospital, Karimangar from one Mr. Gajangi Madhusudha. The petitioner and his son-in-law were in dire need of money to pay the sale consideration amount, they approached the respondcnt and requested to provide an amount ofRs. 12.00 lakhs. Accordingly, the respondent paid an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs tfuough cheque bearing No.635391, dated 15.07.2015 of Andhra Bank in the name of the petitioner and an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs rhrough another cheque bearing No.650952 pe{alnrng to his account maintained in State Bank of Hyderabad in

¶45

KI-. J CRP No l27l ol loli

¶46

.l

¶47

favour of son-in-law of the petitioner and Rs.3.00 lakhs in the lorm of cash in the presence of Mr. Kiran Kumar, Rajeshwar Rao. Kishore Chandra Reddy and one Mr. Keshava Reddy. Accordingly, thc petitioner herein executed suit promissory note scribed b1 Mr. Kishorc Chandra Reddy and witnessed by the aforesaid persons. The son-inlaw of the petitioner also executed a separate promissory note lor Rs.8.00 lakhs received by him. As far as the suit transaction is concemed, the petitioner received an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs through the cheque dated 15.07.2015. Therefore, the respondent flled the atbresaid suit against the petitioner herein lor Rs.6.88,000/- i.c., principal amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs plus interest of Ik.2,88,000/-

¶48

I l. Perusal of record would also reveal that the petitioncr herein filed his written statement denying the claim ol the respondcnt herein. ln the written statement, the petitioner contendod that he has entered into an agreement of sale in respect of land in Survcy No.307/B utd 307/D with one Mr. Anumalla Chandraiah. who is the client of the respondent herein on his behalf and on behalf ol thc respondent herein, who is also half share holder of the said land. [n view ol the same, the respondent has taken blank signed documents

¶49

HftF:r1 ..,-

¶50

6 KL, J CRP No^{I272of 2025}

¶51

from the^{petitioner and his son-in-law, Mr. DayasagarRcddy, towards} security only^{lor the settlement of tand. Later. thc said land was sold} to one Mr. Narayana^{Reddyby the said AnumallaChandraiah in} collusion with the^{respondent. The respondent has to give the share} amount of Mr. Dayasagar^{Reddy, but he is claiming amountby} misusing the said^{securitydocumentsin his custodyand filedfalse} case against the^{son-in-law of the petitioner and also demanding} amount from him.^{The rpspondentherein is a money lenderwithout} any license.^{The petitionerneverborrowed the allegedamount or any} amount from the^{respondent at any point of time' The witnessesto the} alleged transaction^{are yes-menoftherespondent'}

¶52

While so,^{during the courseof cross-examinationof the} plaintiff, the defendant's^{counsel posed certain questionsto the} plaintiff and the plaintiff^{- respondent answeredthus:}

¶53

"I know the defendant since^{2006 throughmy clientand} subsequently he became^{my familyfriend' Igavethe} amount to the defendant^{prior to this suit transaction also' I} do not remember specific^{date of giving the amountto} defendant, but it may be^{2 yearsback priorto this suit} transaction and I^gave an^{amount of Rs'2,00'0001 and he} repaid the said amount in^{the year of2017It is truc except} ikt. ,non"y transactions there^{are no land or any}

¶54

7

¶55

KL. J CRP No 127? of l02i

¶56

transactions among us. The document i.e., Memorandum of Understanding shown to the witness, he said that it is not scribed by me and also lhe signatue is also not belongs to me. I know one Anumula Chandraiah. Witness adds that he is no more. I do not know with regard to thc land transactions in between Anumula Chandraiah and thc defendant. The Xerox copy of agreement ol salc dated 26.07.2014 shown to the witness, he denied it and thcre is no such agreement in between myself, Ram Reddy and A. Chandraiah. The Anumula Chandraiah was my client. It is true the def'endant herein and the defendant in O.S. No.l18/2018 were need of money to purchase tho house site plot, I have not refrrember the Survey number of the said house site. but I filed the document ofthe housc site in OS.NO. I l8/2018 as Ex.A3. The receipt dated 22.|.2017 shown to the witness, he denied that it is not belongs to me. It is not lrue to suggest that as per the receipt dr.22.ll20ll , the defendant paid amount of Rs.2,00,0001 to me. [t is not true to suggest that the signaturc and writing on Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.10.2014 and the signature on agreement of sale dated 26.01.2011 and also writing and signature on reccipt dt.22.11.2017 are belongs to me, but now I am dcposing lalse....''

¶57

".....It is not true to suggest that as per the Memorandurn of [-lnderstanding dt.21.10.2014 I gave the suit amount ro rho defendant to purchase the above said lands. It is not true to

¶58

re

¶59

8 KI. J CRP No 1272 of 2025

¶60

t

¶61

<br>

¶62

suggest that I scribed the MoU, dt.21.10.2014 and also I put my signatue, but now I am denying the same."

¶63

In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is no doubt true that

¶64

there is no reference with regard to Exs.B I and 82 in the^written statement, but there is reference'with regard to^{land transactionbeing} entered by the petitioner on his behalfand on behalfofthe^respondent with one Mr. Anumalla Chandraiah. It appears that during the course ol cross-examination, learned counsel lor the^{pctitioner tried to getthe} answers from the respondent - plaintifT with regard to^{prior land} transactions among the petitioner, his son-in-law and^{the respondent} herein, and out of such exercise, he confronted with copies of receipt dated22.11.2017 and MOU dated 21.10.2014 to PW.l^{(PlaintilQ and} the same were denied by the respondent -^plaintiff herein.^Thereiore, the petitioner - defendant had to mark the said denial documents in^his chief-examination as Exs.B 1 and 82. Though the said documents were marked as Exs.Bl and B2, the same were denied by the plaintiff during cross-examination when confronted to him and, therefore, there is no option for the defendant except to send them to hand-writing expert and accordingly he sought such relief for comparison^{with the} admitted\ignatures.

¶65

9

¶66

KI-. ] CRP No I272 ol 20:i

¶67

rl; i '1 l.'.-:,^I r/;1 :#.1

¶68

-1

¶69

In this rcgard, it is relevant to extract Sections - 45 and 73

¶70

of the Act, I 872 and the same is as under

¶71

"{5. Opinions of erperts.-When the Court has to lorrn an opinion upon a point of foreign lavv or of scicnce. or art. or as to identity of handwriting 2 [or fingcr impressions], thc opinions upon that point of pcrsons speciallv skilled in such foreign law, science or arl, I [or in questions as to identity of handwriting] 2 [or^{finger impressions] are} relevant facts. Such persons arc ca lled cxperts-

¶72

Illustralions

¶73

(a) The question is, whether the death of A was caused by poison.

¶74

'fhe opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison by which A is supposed to have died, are relevant.

¶75

(b) Ihe question is, whether A, at the time ofdoing a certain act. was. by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he was doing what rvas either wrong or contrary to la\4.

¶76

I'he opinions ofexperts upon the question whether thc symptoms exhibited by A commonly show unsoundness of tnind, and whether such unsoundness of rnind usually renders persons incapable of knou,ing thc nature of the acts uhich they do, or of knowing that whar the) do is either wrong or contrary to law, arc relevant.

¶77

i I I I I I I I i I l

t

.\

l0

KI.]

CRP No^{1272 o42025}

(c) The question is,^{whethera certaindocument was} writtcn by A. Another^{document is produced which is} proved or admitted to have been^{writtenby A.}

¶84

The opinions of experts^{on the question whetherthe} two documents^{were writtenby the samepersonor by} different^{persons,are relevant."}

¶85

"73.^{Comparisonof signature,writing or seal with} oahers admitted or^{proved.-Inorder to ascertain} whethcr a signature,^{writing, or seal is that of the} person by whom^{it, purportsto have been written or} made, any signature,^{writing, or seal admitted or} proved to the, satisfaction^{of the Court to havebeen} written or made by that^{personmaybe comparedwith} the one which^{is to be proved, although that signature,} writing, or seal has not^{beenproduced or provedfor} any other^purpose.

¶86

The Court may^{direct any person present in Court} to write any^{wordsor figuresfor thepurpose of} enabling the Court^{to comparethe words or figuresso} written with any^{words or figures allegedto have been} wriften by such^person.

¶87

This section applies^{also, withany necessary} modi fi cations,^{to fi nger-impressions."}

¶88

Section 45 of^{the Act,1872,inter alia,provides that the} Court can call fbr evidence^{of expertsto form an opinion regardingthe} gcnuincness of signatures and handwriting^{whichare reliedon by one} party and disputed by another^{party. It is also relevant to note that the}

¶89

lt

¶90

KL. J CRP No llTl ol lo:i

¶91

power to seek cxpert opinion under Section 45 of the Act, 1872 is discretionary and depends on lacts of each case. The Courts under Section 73 ol' the Act. 1872 can themselves compare the signarures or handwriting. llowever. the l{on'ble Supreme Court has time and again cautioned that Courts cannot act as experts in all the cases. Unless it is glaringll,clear that the signanrres are same or are difflerent, the Courts should normallv call lor an opinion from the experts.

¶92

In State (Delhi Admn.) v. Pali Ramr, the Apex Court hcld that prudcnce rcquircs that a judge shall obtain expert opinion in the matters of conrparison trf handwriting. The relevant paragraph is extracted below,:

¶93

''30.^'l'he maftcr can be viewed lrom another angle. also. Although there is no legal bar to the Judge using his own eyes to compare the disputed writing u ith the admirted writing, even without the aid o1' the evidence of any handwriting expert, the Judgc should. as a mafter ol prudence and caution, hesitate to base his finding with regard to the identity ol'a handrvriting which lorms the sheeranchrtr ol' the prosecution case against a person accuscd ol an oflence. solely on comparison made by himsclt-. It is therefore, not advisable that a

(1979) 2 SCC t58

&--

I

t)

KL, J CRP No^{1272 6f2025}

¶99

Judge should^{take upon himself the taskof} comparing the^{admitted writing with the} <lisputed one to^{find out whether the two agree} with each other; and^{the prudentcourse is to} obtain the opinion^{and assistanceof an expert'"}

¶100

In Ajit Savant^{Majagvai v. State of Karnataka2' the}

¶101

Apex Court held^{that where thereis even stightestof doubt in the} minds ol the^{Judge while comparing the admitted and disputed} signaturcs. such^{signatures shallbe sent for expert opinion under} Section 45 of^{the Act, 1872. The relevantparagraphsare extractcd}

¶102

below

¶103

"37. This section^{consistsof nvo parts. White the} first part provides^{for comparisonof signatue,} finger impression,^{writingetc. allegedly written or} made by a person^{withsignature or writingetc'} admined or^{provedto the satislaction of the Court} to have been^{written by the same person,the} second part empowers^{the Court to directany} person including an^{accused, presentin Court, to} give his specimen^{writingor fingerprints for the} purpose of enabling the Court^{to compareit with} the writing or signature^{allegedlymade by that} person. The section does not^{specifoby whom the} comparison shalt be^{made.However, lookingto}

¶104

r. ( rgv) T scc uo

¶105

l)

¶106

KL, J CRP No I272 ol202i

¶107

i I I :

¶108

&.. ia;J

¶109

the other provisions of the Act, it is clear that such comparison may eirher be made by a handwriting expert under Section 45 or by anyone familiar rvith the handwriting ol' thc person concerned as provided by Section 47 or by the Court itself.

¶110

As a matter of cxtreme caution and judicial sobriety, the Court should not normally take upon itself the responsibility of comparing the disputed signature with that of the admitted signature or handwriting and in the event of the slightest doubt, lcave the matter to the wisdom of experts. But this does not mean that thc Court has not the power to compare thc disputed signature with the admitted signature as this power'is clearly available under Section 73 of thc Act. [See: State (Dclhi Admn.) v. Pali Ram [(1979) 2 SCC 158 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 389 : ArR 1979 SC 141."

¶111

In Thiruvengadam Pillai v. Navaneethammalj, the Apex

¶112

Court observed that it is riskv to arrive at a conclusion regarding signatures and hand^,.riting without an expert opinion.^'I'he relevant paragraph is extracted below:

¶113

" 16. While there is no doubt that Court can compare the dis Duted handwritine/ s nature/ Iinper impression with the admitted

r. lzooty a scc sto

(

l

L

l4

KL. J CRf No 1272 of2025

¶120

handwritine/sienature/fi nger imDression. such comoarison bv Court without the assistance of anv exDert. has alwavs been considered to be hazardous and riskv. When it is said that there is no bar to a Court to compare the disputed finger impression with the admitted finger impression, it goes without saying that it can record an opinion or finding on such comparisoq only after an analysis of the characteristics of the admitted tinger impression and after veriSing whether the same characteristics are found in the disputed finger impression. Th. "ornpr.ison of the two thumb impregsions cannot be casual or by a mere glance- Further, a finding in the judgment that there appeared to be no marked differences between the admitted thumb impression and disputed thumb impression, without an].thing more, cannot be accepted as a valid finding that the disputed signature is of the person who has put the admitted thumb impression. Where the Court t'inds that the disputed finger impression and admitted thumb impression are clear and where the Court is in a position to identift the characteristics of tingerprints, the Court may record a finding on comparison, even in the absence of an expert's opinion. But where the disputed thumb impression is smudgy, vague or very light, the Court should not hazard a guess by a casual perusal."

¶121

I

¶122

l5

¶123

KI-, J (lRIrNo 1272 of2025

¶124

In Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthana. the Apex Court held that, the Courts while dealing with handrvriting or signahrres cannot itself act as an [:xper1. The relevant paragraph is extracted below:

¶125

"28. The opinion of a handwriting expert is fallibte/liable to error Iike thar of any orhcr witness, and 1,et, ir cannot be brushed aside as useless. There is no legal bar to prevent the Court from comparing signatures or handwriting. by using its own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing and then from applying its own observation to provc the said handu,ritings to be the sam6 or difl'erent, as the case may be, hut in doing so, the Court cannot itself become an expert in this regard and must refrain from plal.ing the role of an expert. for thc simple reason thal. thc opinion of the Coun may also not be conclusivc. Therefore, when the Court takes such a task upon itself, and findings are recorded solely on the basis of comparison of signatures or handwritings. the Court must keep in rnind the risk involved. as Ihc opinion formed b1, the Court may not trc conclusive and is susceptible to error, especially when the exercise is conducted by one, not conversant with the subject. Thc Court, thereforc.

(2012) r2 scc 406

.4.-^' tsj'# :*:l

(

t6

\i \

KL, J CR" No^1272of2025

¶132

as a matter of^{prudence andcaution shouldhesitate} or be slow^{to base its findingssolely upon the} comparison made^{by it. l{owever,where there is} an opinion^{u'hctherof an expert,or of any witness,} the Court may^{thcn apptyits own observationby} comparing^{the signatures, or handu,itings for} providing a decisive^{weight or influenceto its} decision."

¶133

In Ramesh^{ChandraAgrawal} v Regency^HosPital

¶134

Limiteds, the Apex^{Court held as under:}

¶135

"An expert is not a^{witness of lact and his} evidence is^{really of an advisorycharacter'The} duty of an expert^{witnessis to fumish the Judge} with the necessary^{scicntific criteria for testingthe} accuracy of^{the conclusionsso as to enable the} Judge to ftrrm^{his independentjudgmentby the} application^{of thesecriteria to the facts proved by} the evidence^{of the case. The scientificopinion} evidence, if^{intelligible, convincing and tested} becomes^{a lactor and often an important factor for} consideration^{alongwith other evidence of the} case. The credibitity^{ofsucha witnessdependson} the reasons^{statedin support of his conclusions and} the data and^{material furnishedwhichform the} basis of his^{conclusions.(See Malay Kumar} Ganguly vs.^{Dr.Sukumar Mukherjeeand}

'.^{AIR 20losc 806}

il

7

u#' r-*d

t7 Kt_. l CRP No 1272 ol 202i

¶141

others) [Criminal Appeal Nos.l 19l-l194 of 2005 along with Civil Appeal No.l727 of 2007 ,, decided on 7.8.20091".

¶142

Therefore, in vieu, of lhe dicta in the abovc decisions, it

¶143

can be said that Courts shall normally seek expcrt opinion when thcy are posed with a situation where they have to compare admitted and disputed signatures. The Courts can refuse expert opinion only when no doubt exists regarding the genuineness oF thc signaturcs alter comparison of the admitted and disputed signatures. [n cases whero even a slightest doubt exists, the Courts shall scnd the admitted and disputed signatures for'expcrt opinion under Scction^.{5 of the Act, 1872.

¶144

ln the light of the aforesaid discussion. coming ro the facts of the present case, as discussed supra, the petitioncr - delendant laid foundation by confronting Exs.B I and 82 to PW. I during his crossexamination though not direct reference with rcgard to rhe same in his written statement. However, as discussed above. thcrc is a ref-erencc with regard to land dealings befween the petitioner and the respondcnt herein and also the son-in-law of the petitioner. As the respondcnt denied about his hand-writings on Exs.B I and 82, rhe samc werc

'1

L

l8

KI-, J CRP No 1272 or2025

¶149

marked tkough^{the petitioner- delcndantin his chief-examination.} Since the same were^{markcd as [rxs.[] I and 82 and sincethe same} were denied by the respondent^{- plaintiff,the petitionerhas no option} except to prove the^{same by sending to handwritingexpert for} comparison^{with the admitted signarures.Therefore,he filed the} petition under Section^{- 45 of the Act. I 872}

¶150

When a suit for recovcry^{of money based on promissory} note and when such document^{is dcniedby the other side contending} that it was not executed^{lor hand loan,but it was givenas a security} purpose in respect ofa land dealing^{transaction and to prove thatthere} were land dealing transactions^{bctween the petitionerandthe} respondent as in Exs.B^{1 and 82, which were denied by the plaintiff,} the only remedy left for the trial^{Court is to obtainexpert's opinionby} sending Exs.B I and Il2^{lor expert} .opinion^{to comparethe} handwritings on Exs.B I^{and 82 with that of admitted handwritings of} the ptaintiff. In fact, that^{is the ob.icctof Section - 45 oftheAct, 1872.}

¶151

Thus, it is^{just andneccssaryto send Exs.Bl and 82 for} expert's opinion to compare^{the handwritings and signatureson them} rbiqh the admitted handwritings and signatures^{of the plaintiff to be}

l9

I I

gj, I&+,..-- ".

KI,. J CRP \o llTl oll0l5

¶156

obtained in Open Court. Even if the said documents are sent fbr expert's opinion, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent herein. When there is specific denial by the respondcnt that t_he handwritings on Exs.Bl and Il2 do not belong to him. it is not sal'e to reject the present petition. The said principle was also reiterated by this Court in Katike Bhecm Shankar v. Mrs. T. Laxmi (@ Punyavathi6. The said aspects werc not considered bv the trial Court. Thus, the order under challenge in this revision is liablc to bc set aside.

¶157

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, thc present Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 05.03.2024 passed by leamed Principal Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, in [.A. No.34l of 2024 in O.S. No.t25 of 2018. I.A. No.i-Il ol 2024 is allowed, and the trial Court is directed to send Exs. B t and 82 along with admitted handwritings of the respondent - ptaintiff and signatures available on Vakalat, plaint etc., and if the handw.rirings arc not available, the same may be taken in the Open Court and send them along with Exs.Bl and 82 to handwriting expert for comparison with the admitted signatures and handwritings and obtain his report as early

¶158

o. c.R.P. No-t939 0f 2022. decided on20.12.2022

¶159

20

¶160

KL, J CRP No 1272 of2O2i

¶161

i I I I

¶162

ll

¶163

as possible so as to proceed with further in the aforesaid suit. The