M/s New Era Educational Society Vs Smt. v. Saraswathi

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T,MADHAVI DEVI

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2582 OF 202s

¶6

Petition Under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia against the order dated 01-07-2025 in l.A.No. 14 ot 2O25 in O.S.No. 81 of 20'18 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Khammam

¶7

Between

¶8

M/s New Era Educational Society, Represented by its Secretary and Correspondent, New Era High School, Mamata Hospital Road, Khammam Dist. Telangana.

¶9

L V. Ramana Rao, S/o late l. Sitaramaiah Aged about 63 years, Secretary and Correspondent New Era High School, Mamata Hospital Road, Khammam Dist. Telangana.

¶10

... Revision Petitioners/ Defendants No. 1 & 3

¶11

AND

¶12

Smt. V. Saraswathi, d/o late V. Venkateswar Rao, Aged 78 years, Occ: Retd. Govt. Lecturer, R/ o Cheruvu Bazar, Khammam Town{hammffis};ict

¶13

Mr. lnjam Sitaramaiah (died)

¶14

Smt. l. Seetharavamma, W/o late l. Sitaramaiah, Aged about 76 years, Member, New Era Educational Society, New Era High School, Mamata Hospital Road, Khammam Dist. Telangana.

¶15

Kancheti Narsimha Rao, S/o K. Venkateshwarlu, Aged about 65 years, Joint Secretary, New Era Educational Society, New Era High School, Mamata Hospital Road, Khammam Dist. Telangana.

¶16

Kancheti Srinivasa Rao, S/o K. Venkateshwarlu, Aged 65 years, Occ: Vice President, New Era Educational Society, New Era High School, Mamata Hospital Road, Khammam Dist. Telangana.

¶17

Smt- lnjam Krishnaveni, w/o Y. Laxminarayana, Aged 61 years, Occ Household, Rl/o D. No. 4- 2- 624, Rotary Nagar, Khammam Urban, Khammam District, Telangana.

¶18

( Respondent No. 2, 4 to 6 are not necessary parties in the present CRP)

¶19

...RESPONDENTS/ Defendants No. 2, 4,5,6,7

¶20

I

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶22

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 to stay all further^proceedings in OS No. 81 of 2018 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Khammam.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S JURISLIT LAW LLP

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI RAVULA RAJASHEKAR

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No, 3 :^--

¶26

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶27

U

¶28

IN TTIT] HIGH COUR'I'FOR T'HI' S1'ATI'^()F TT]LANGANA A'I- HYDI.]RABAI)

¶29

1'I{E IIONOIiRABLE SM'I.. JUSTICT] 1" MADIIAVI I)EVI

¶30

ctrVlr- R[.vrsroN^pEl'n'toN N0.2582^()t'2025

¶31

DAl'Et) . & .01.2026

¶32

Between:

¶33

M/s New llra Educational Society rep. by its Sccretary and Correspondent, New Era High School, Marnata Hospital Road, Khammam District and another

¶34

... Petitioners

¶35

AND

¶36

Smt. V. Saraswathi and 5 others

¶37

... Respondents

¶38

ORDT]R

¶39

'I'his Civil Revision Petition (CRP) is filed against the order ol'the

¶40

Principal Disrrict Judge at Khammarn dt.01.07.2025 in I.A.No.l4 ol202-5 in O.S.No.8l ol20l8.

¶41

The suit was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,00,76,000/-

¶42

'fhe petitioners herein are defendants I and 3 in the suit.'l'he delendants

¶43

filcd I.A.No. I ol-2021 in O.S.No.t3 I of 2018 lor sending the signatures

¶44

C.R.P.No.2582 of2025

¶45

2

¶46

of thc petitioncrs to a [Jandwriting Expert to form an opinion. The plaintiltTl" responclent opposed the same by Iiling a counter stating that lt is necessaly that the signatures contemporaneous to the disputed signatures be sent for comparison and that the petition is vague and superfluous anrl that thc' rvhole exercise is of'no avail in view of the inconclus iveness of' such e'u'idence and it only leads to wastage of the precious tirnc c,f the^('our1. Howc'ver, the trial Court allowed the said petition and challenginq thc sanle. the petitioners herein along with others flled C.R.l'.No.1426 ol 2022. This Court, vrTe its order dt.25.09.2023 . obscrved that the Court below has to direct to send the signatures in t:x.A.2 and Ex.A.3 along with the contemporaneous signatures of the parties but not thc present signatures for comparison. Accordingly, the ordc,r dt.30.08.2022 passed in I.A.No. 1 of 2021 in O.S.No.81 ol 20ltt was set aside and thc Principal District Judge, Khammam was directe,cl to send the signanrres ol Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 along rvith the c()ntemporaneous signatures of the defendants to a Handwriting [:xper1 for conrparison ol thc signatures. It is stated that in compliance thcrrwith, the leamcd l,rincipal District Judge, Kiammam was supposcd to se nd the original documents of Ex.A.2 dt. 10.06.2013 and Ex.A.3 dt. lti.0l .20l3 along with contemporaneous admitted

¶47

C.R.P.No.2582 of 2025

¶48

3

¶49

t;

¶50

signatures to a l{andwriting Expeft. lnstead, he has sent Exs.A.2 and A.3 dt. 10.06.2013 and 18.01.2013 respectively along with the present day signatures, i.e., 09.01.2025 ol' thc revision petitioner No.2 obtained in the open Court arrd the photocopies of' the signatures of respondent No.2/defendant No.2 (died) to the Handwriting lJxpert and the Handwriting lrxpert has given opinion in File No.DCV/09/2025 dt.07.02.2025, against which the revision petitioners have taken objcction by tiling I.A.No. l4 ol 2025. The said petition has been disnrissed vide orders dt.01.07.2025 and against the same, the present CI{P is flled.

¶51

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners subn.ritted that the siqnatures obtaincd by the leamed Principal District Judge, Kharnrnam lor conrparison are not contemporaneous signatures to Ir.xs.A.2 and A.3, but arc the current signatures and tl'rerelore, the opinion of the l{andwriting Expert on such evidence should not be considered and that the impugned order passed by the Principal District Judgc, Kharnmam is against the spirit and object of the order of this Court in C.l{.P.No.2426 of 2022 dr.25.09.2023.It is lurther submitted that instead of sending the original documents of Exs.Al and r\4 for cornparison, the photocopies^were sent, which is not permissible in law. \t?

¶52

C.R.P.No.2582 o1 2025

¶53

4

¶54

I

¶55

It is fi.rrtlrer subnlitted thirt irr terms of Scctions 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidenct- Act^(Sections .19( I ) and 72 ol Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 202-i ), dispLrteil signatures shouk[ not only be comparecl with the conternporaneous signaturcs but those contemporaneous signatures should be admitted signatures ol'the concerned party as well, and unless the signatures are adnritted signatures, they cannot be allowed to be compared. lt is subrnitted that the trial^(lourt failcd to consider the material produced by the rcvision petitioners, i.e., the report issued by thc'lruth Labs dt.15.05.2025 in f ilc No.'l-LlllQDl10612025, wherein it is clearly stated that Exs.A.2 and A.3 are forged documents and that the sarne are not tallying with the admitted signatures of the def-endant. 'lhereflore, it is prayed that the irnl'rugned order be set aside and the original documents of Exs.A.2 and A.3 be sent to the Handwriting Expert lor second opinion along with the contemporaneous signatures.

¶56

[.t'arned t:oLrrrsel or the rL'spondent No. I /plaintill' suppofted the impugned order and subnritted that pursuant to the directions of this Corrrt in Cl.lt.P.No.2426 ol 2022 dt.25.09.2023, the trial Court has sent Exs.A.2 and A..l to Telangana Forensic Laboratory for opinion, who havc given thcil opinion in favour of the plaintiff and conflrmed the signatures of def-endants 2 and I as original signatures and not being

C.R.P.No.2582 of2025

5

I

i

satisficd with the said opinion, delendant No.3 without obtaining permission liom the lJon'ble Court, has sent his own signatures to^'I'ruth Labs, I{yderabad and rcceivcd opinion on 15.05.2025 and that this evidence is inadmissible in law. lt is submitted that the l'ruth Labs is a private organisation and that the docurrents marked in the Court cannot be sent fbr cornparison without the pernrission ol the Court. It is lurther statcd that thc'fruth I-aboratorics has given two opinions, one in fbvour of the plaintifl'and the second in lavour ol del-endants 2 and 3 and that delendant No.3 has to ohtain perrnission to cross-examine the I{andwriting Expert on lris report, but they have not prelcrred to do so and therefote, the I.A. was not maintainable and the trial Court, after corisidering the sanre, has observed that the Handwriting Expert's ls opinion dt.07.02.2025 not proved by exarnining the Handwriting Expert and unless and until it is proved to be correct or not, the question of consideratior-r ol obtaining second opinion does not arise and therefole, the present petition is premature and he thus support the order of the trial Court.

¶62

I{aving regard to the rival contentions and the n-raterial on record, this Court firrds that in earlier CRP, i.e., C.R.P.No.2426 of 2022, this Court had directed the trial Couft to obtain contemporaneous signatures

¶63

C.R.P.No.2582 of 2025

¶64

6

¶65

ol' thc dct'endants and send the sarne to tlie Handwriting Expert lbr comparison. But, as pointed out by the learnecl counsel for the revsion pctitioners, the signatures ol tl-re defcndants werc taken in open Court on 09.01.2015 and rherefbre, it cannot be considered as contemporaneous signatures. lrxs.A.2 and A.3 are o1' the ycar 20 l3 and thcrelore, the contL-nr poran eous signatures would be of the relevant year, i.e., 201 3 ancl thc atilnitted signature s of defenilant No.3 during the relcvant period can be obtainecl and the originals of such documents should be sent litr comparison and lbr the opinion ol the Handwriting Expert, particularly since defendant No.3 is alleging that the documents Exs.A.2 and A.3 are torged and fabricated. The defendants, however, have not tnentioned as to.whethcr they possess any contemporaneous documents such as rcgislered sale deeds or the specimen signatures lrom a bank or any docunrents submitted be fbrc statutory authorities of the years 20i2, 2013 and 20 14.

¶66

The leamed counsel for respondent No.l/plaintiff placed reliance upon the^judgment of the Andhra Pradesh Fligh Court in C.R.P.No.4l I ol'2024 dt.28.11.2024 in support of his contention that when expert opiniou can be called for and the contemporaneous signatures/ handwritings are not readily available, then the Court may require the

*-.'.

./

C.R.P.No 2582 of2025

7

parly or iurpress the petitioning pafiy that the comparison of disputed handwritingsisignatures with adrnitted handwritings/signatures separated by a timc lag ol 2 to 3 ycars *,ould be desirable so as to facilitate the Expert to give satislactory opinion and it is at the discretion of the Courl to pass such an order.

¶72

Therefore, tl.re impugned order dt.01.07.2025 in I.A.No. l4 of 2025 in O.S.No.8l ol'2018 on tl.re file of the Principal District Judge at Kliarnrnanr is sct asidc and the trial Court is dirccted to obtain contenr poraneous docur.ncnts containirrg the signatures of petitioner No.2 herein and send thcrrr to the Handwriting Experl along with the original docurnents of Exs.A.2 and A.3 wl.rich are filed into the Court tbr companson.

¶73

The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.

¶74

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Civil Revision

¶75

Petition shalI sland closed.

¶76

sd/^{. MOMINA MEHAR} A ISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶77

//TRUE^COPY// CTTON^OFFICER \

¶78

To, 12 The One PrinciPaCC^{to SI RI. District Jduge, Khammam} RAVULA^{M/S JURISLIT RAJASHEKAR AdvocateLAWLLP Advocate loPucl} UC] 3 One CC^{to SRI'} 4. Two^{CD CoPies}

Yv

ku1/kam

, /

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/01/2026

ORDER