Thumma Geetha @Vallala Geetha Vs Guda Mahipal Reddy — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Thumma Geetha @Vallala Geetha Vs Guda Mahipal Reddy — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; Civil Revision Petition dismissed with no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications, if any pending, directed to stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should interfere with the order dated 23.09.2024 dismissing I.A.No.318 of 2023 (the defendants' application under Section 45, Indian Evidence Act r/w Section 151 CPC for expert comparison of signatures and age of signature on the Demand Promissory Note), which the trial court held to be pre-mature. +1 more

Court's answer

The learned trial Judge rightly observed that the application (I.A.No.318 of 2023) is pre-mature and accordingly dismissed it.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order is a reasoned order, well founded and does not require interference by this Court; therefore the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed, and it is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Telangana High Court (N.V. Shravan Kumar, J.), Civil Revision Petition No. 3429 of 2024, decided 24.04.2025 - Dismissed. Challenge to the order dated 23.09.2024 of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chennur dismissing I.A.No.318 of 2023 in O.S.No.50 of 2019 (suit for recovery of money), wherein the defendants sought, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act r/w Section 151 CPC, referral of a Demand Promissory Note dated 11.12.2016 to the Handwriting Expert, Forensic Science Laboratories, Red Hills, Hyderabad for comparison of their signatures with admitted signatures on the vakalat and determination of the age of the signatures, claiming the signatures were affixed before the date of the executed document. The order below recorded that both defendants had categorically admitted the Ex.A1 signatures in cross-examination, invoked an Andhra Pradesh High Court ratio against such comparison, and found the application pre-mature (companion I.A.No.319 of 2023, likewise dismissed, was not challenged). Holding the impugned order reasoned and well-founded, the High Court declined interference and dismissed the revision petition; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 23.09.2024 in I.A.No.318 of 2023 in O.S.No.50 of 2019 dismissing the petitioners/defendants' application (seeking expert examination/comparison of signatures and age of signature), challenged through this Civil Revision Petition.¶26
Court of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chennur · 23.09.2024
Prior proceeding
Respondent/plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.50 of 2019 for recovery of money before the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chennur; the suit was coming up for arguments.¶32
Prior proceeding
Defendants submitted they had signed the promissory note after the limitation period but could not tell their trial-court counsel before trial.¶32
Prior proceeding
With no representation, defendants' evidence was closed and the suit was posted for arguments on 10.08.2023.¶32
Prior proceeding
Petitioners/defendants thereafter filed I.A.No.318 of 2023 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act r/w Section 151 CPC.¶32
Prior proceeding
Claim that signatures on the Demand Promissory Note (executed 11.12.2016) were affixed before the date of the executed document; prayer to send the document with admitted signatures on the vakalat to the Handwriting Expert, FSL Red Hills, Hyderabad for comparison and age of signatures.¶36
Prior proceeding
Plaintiff's counter: defendants had admitted execution of the promissory note while recording evidence before the trial court; contradictory pleas and estoppel alleged.¶37
Prior proceeding
Trial court's docket order dated 27.04.2023 showed both counsel present and further evidence of defendants closed as counsel for petitioners/defendants reported no further evidence.¶41
Prior proceeding
Companion I.A.No.319 of 2023 sought comparison of petitioners' signatures with admitted signatures on the vakalat, written statement and other suit documents.¶41
Prior proceeding
Trial court found I.A.No.318 of 2023 pre-mature and not maintainable and dismissed it; aggrieved thereby the petitioners filed the present Civil Revision Petition.¶45
Prior proceeding
Per the respondent's counter in the revision, both I.A.Nos.318 and 319 of 2023 were dismissed on merits by separate orders on 23.09.2024; petitioners challenged only I.A.No.318 and not the order in I.A.No.319.¶46
Prior proceeding
Quoted paragraph 7(iii) of the order in I.A.No.319 of 2023: signatures may be sent to an expert only when denied, but both defendants categorically admitted during cross-examination that the signatures on Ex.A1 are theirs, and citing an Andhra Pradesh High Court ratio the comparison petition was held non-maintainable.¶51