Yernnam Venkata Rami Reddy Vs Karri Neelavathi

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA}

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF^JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWEi.ITY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI^DEVI

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3499 OF 2025

¶7

Petition Under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, 1950^aggrievedby the order dated 29-07-2025 in l.A.No. 01 of 2025 in O.S.No.^{212 ot 2024 on the} file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Sathupalli

¶8

Between:

¶9

Yernnam Venkata Rami Reddy, S/o Kanki Reddy, Aged about 65^{years,Occ.Nil,} R/o Tekulapally Village, Penuballi Mandal, Khammam^District

¶10

...PETITIONER/ RespondenU Plaintiff

¶11

AND

¶12

Karri Neelavathi, Wo Venkateswara Rao,^Age. 53^years, Occ.^{Homemaker, R/o} Tekulapally Village, Penuballi Mandal, Khammam^District

¶13

...RESPONDENT/ Petitioner/ Defendant

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the HighCourt may be pleased to} suspend the operation and implementation of^{the docket order dated29-07 -2025} passed in l.A.No.1 OF 2025 in O.S No 212 OF 2024 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, at Sathupalli,^{pendirrgdisposai of the main revision petition.}

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl.^{NYSHADHAM CHANDRA SEKHAR}

¶17

Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI D. JAIPAL REDDY

¶18

The Gourt made the following ORDER:

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF'" ILANGANA

¶20

ATHYDERABAD

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MAI) IAVI DT.IVI

¶22

CIVIL REVISION PETITIoN NO.3499 0rr 2025

¶23

DATED I Ob .01.2026

¶24

Between:

¶25

Yemarn Venkata Rami Reddy

... Petitioner

AND

Karri Neelavathi

. Respondent

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition (CRP) is filed agair ;r rhe l)ocker

¶32

order dt.29.07.2025 in I.A.No.l of 2025 in O.S.No.2[ ot-2024 (otd O.S.No.25 of 2019) on the file of the Senior Civil Judgc i:t Siathupally

¶33

The petitioner herein is the plaintill and the sLr . is filed lor recovery of money on the basis of four (4) pro I issory notes dt.05.0 1.2018 executed by the respondent/delendant in bvour of rhe petitioner. The suit was renumbered as O.S,No.2l2 ol 1024 and the delendant has filed written statement denying the tiatrit ry under the

¶34

C.R.P.No.3499 of2025

¶35

2

¶36

alleged promissory notes. It was specifically stated that the promissory notes are false and fabricated.

¶37

The defendant has filed I.A.No. I of 2025 in O.S.No.2l2 of 2024 to send Exs.A. I to A.4 promissory notes for comparison of the signatures of the defendant with the signatures of her Account Opening Formvide No.6486101003009 of Canara Bank, Kalluru Branch and also her withdrawal forms dt.29. 10.2018 and 30. 10.20 l8 to a Handwriting Expert, Govemment FSL, Hyderabad in the interest ofjustice.

¶38

The plaintiff has opposed the same by filing a counter affidavit and it is stated that the plaintift was examined as P.W.2 who is the scribe of Exs.A.l to A.4 and in the cross-exarnination of the defendant, she had admitted her signatures on the promotes. T'heretbre, the plaintiff stated that the Court is empowered to compare the signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act and there was no need to send those documents for the opinion of the Handwriting Expert. It was further submitted that the documents are not public documents and they are between the bank and the customers and are not open to public like registered documents such as sale decds etc., and there will not be any authentication or genuineness of the signatures on the said documents

¶39

C.R.P.tJ .:i499 of 2025

¶40

3

¶41

and further that the said accounts were opened afit: 10 months of execution of the promissory notes intentionaily. It is s r rmitted that the trial Court, however, allowed the said petition by o I rerving that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff I 1, allowing the petition. Challenging the same, the present CRp is filed.

¶42

5' Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated rl e submissions made in the counter affrdavit filed in I.A.No. I of 2025 .

¶43

The leamed counsel for the respondent supporte,l the impugned order and also the averments in the counter affidavit in thr :;aid I.A.

¶44

[{aving regard to the rival contentions and the nrarr .ial on rcc.rd. this Court finds that the alleged promissory notes Lre all clated 0-5.0 I .20 I 8, whereas the documents which are sought to tt ,rccepted and scrrt for examination are dated 29.ro.2org and 30.r0.20 i respectively while the suit was filed in the year 2019. Therefore, tlit, apprehensior.r expresscd by the plaintiff that the said account was opene,i sul.rseque.try only to defeat the claim of the plaintiff carurot be ruled orr in roro. -l.his court is also in agreement with the observation of trial I c,r.rrl t[.rat the opinion olthe t{andwriting Expert wourd be helprul lor a: udicarion of tlte issues wherr the defendant has alleged that the prontis:;,,r.y rxrLes arc

¶45

C.R.P,No.3499 of2025

¶46

4

¶47

false and fabricated. Therefore, the triar court ought not to have accepted the bank opening and withdrawal forms which are subsequent to the alleged promissory notes. The petitioner/defendant mav be directed to fumish copies of her admitted slgnatures prior to the promissory notes and send all the forms including the documents prior thereto along with the alleged promissory nores for Handwriting Expert opinion. If such documents prior to the promissory notes are not available, then the trial court may examine the documenrs by itself and on the basis ofevidence, decide the issue in accordance with law.

¶48

With the above observations, the Civil Revision petition is

¶49

disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶50

9 Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Civil Revision

¶51

Petition shall stand closed.

¶52

//TRUE COPYII

¶53

ASSISTifi/i [iB[?HAH /t---,

,)

SECTION OFFICER

To

l The senior civir Judge at sathupa,i , Khammam District. 2 One CC to SRt. NYSHADHAM CHANDRA SEKHAR, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to SRt. D. JAIPAL REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies qi k ul,'l,l{

i

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/01/2026

:7(-JuiE s;iat
" :,'
,.)o
OI 2 i r;8 202[ .=
*
!i:1.'E

¶62

ORDER

¶63

CRP.No.3499 of 2025