Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act =Burden lies on whom ? = it is obligatory on the part of the petitioner to produce such documents, which have a touch of authenticity and which cannot be disputed as such by the respondent, that bear the signatures of the petitioner of the contemporaneous period as of the suit promissory note, namely of or about in the year 2013.

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act =Burden lies on whom ? = It is well settled that for the purpose of comparison of signatures on a disputed document, the signatures of contemporaneous period as of the disputed document shall form the best and preferred basis. Necessarily, the petitioner should produce such documents for the purpose of comparison.it is obligatory on the part of the petitioner to produce such documents, which have a touch of authenticity and which cannot be disputed as such by the respondent, that bear the signatures of the petitioner of the contemporaneous period as of the suit promissory note, namely of or about in the year of promissory note. 

AP HIGH COURT 

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.14 of 2020

DATE: 23.06.2020

VEMPATI VENKATESWARA RAO
Versus

PARVATHANENI NAGENDRA BABU ALIAS NAGENDRA

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.14 of 2020

ORDER:

1. This revision petition is preferred against the order of the

learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, in I.A.No.1251 of 2017

in O.S.No.310 of 2016, dated 18.11.2019. It was the petition

filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short, ‘the

Act’) by the petitioner. He is the defendant in the suit.

Whereas, the respondent is the plaintiff.

2. The respondent laid the suit on the foot of a promissory

note dated 15.12.2013 for recovery of Rs.14,91,500/- with

subsequent interest and for costs.

3. The petitioner has resisted the suit claim mainly on the

ground that the suit promissory note is a rank forgery and thus

denying its execution.

4. In the course of hearing, it is informed that the parties

have let in evidence and the suit is at the stage of arguments.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that

the above petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act

was filed on his behalf along with the written statement and it

was considered by the trial Court at the fag end, after both

parties have chosen to adduce evidence. Learned counsel for

the petitioner further contended that one of the reasons

assigned by the learned trial Judge in refusing to accede his

request is delay and in the above circumstances, the reason so

assigned cannot stand. This contention appears proper. The suit

itself was laid during the year 2016 and the very filing number 

2

assigned to the petition under Section 45 of the Evidence Act

itself indicated that it was available on the file of the trial Court

in the year 2017 itself. Therefore, this reason assigned by the

learned trial Judge, in rejecting the request of the petitioner

cannot stand.

6. As seen from the affidavit and the petition, the request of

the petitioner is to forward the suit promissory note to a

handwriting expert for comparison of the signatures attributed to

him therein and his signatures appearing on the vakalat as well

as the written statement.

7. This process relating to comparison of signatures is

seriously questioned by learned counsel for the respondent. It

was one of the reasons assigned by learned trial Judge to reject

the request of the petitioner. In that respect, learned trial

Judge relied on the judgment in P.Padmanabayya v. G.Srinivasa

Rao (2017(2) ALD Page 368) and Palle Chakraphani v.

M.Pratapreddy(2017(5) ALT Page 292 A.P).

8. It is well settled that for the purpose of comparison of

signatures on a disputed document, the signatures of

contemporaneous period as of the disputed document shall form

the best and preferred basis. Necessarily, the petitioner should

produce such documents for the purpose of comparison. As

rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, in

view of nature of defence offered by the petitioner, possibility of

disguising the signatures in the vakalat and in the written

statement can well be perceived. They do not stand for

comparison and obviously, those signatures should have been 

3

subscribed by the petitioner, somewhere, in the year 2017.

Possibility to buttress his defence, disguised signatures could

have been offered as rightly contended by the learned counsel

for the respondent.

9. Nonetheless, it should not be forgotten that every party

shall be allowed to prove his claim in a suit or his defence.

Particularly, finding that an application of such nature was filed

along with the written statement by the petitioner, bonafides on

the part of the petitioner need not be doubted. At the same

time, it is obligatory on the part of the petitioner to produce

such documents, which have a touch of authenticity and which

cannot be disputed as such by the respondent, that bear the

signatures of the petitioner of the contemporaneous period as of

the suit promissory note, namely of or about in the year 2013. If

the petitioner had made such an effort in the trial Court,

possibly, the learned trial Judge would not have refused to

accept his request. Without making such an effort or an offer,

obviously, the petitioner had come up with such an application

seeking such relief.

10. Nonetheless, in order to give an opportunity to the

petitioner, to substantiate his defence, it is desirable to direct

him to produce such documents of the contemporaneous period

as of the suit promissory note bearing his signatures, which have

touch of authenticity or that cannot be easily disputed by the

respondent in the suit within a particular time frame. If the

petitioner fails to produce the documents within such time, so

granted, it is desirable to direct that the order passed by the 

4

learned trial Judge should stand. It should also be made clear

that no further time should be granted to the petitioner for such

purpose by the trial Court.

11. With the above observation, this civil revision petition is

disposed of. The petitioner (defendant) is directed to produce

documents having touch of authenticity or which cannot be

easily be disputed by the respondent(plaintiff) of

contemporaneous period as of the suit promissory note namely,

of the year 2013 or of the same period bearing his signatures in

trial Court on or before 17.07.2020. The trial Court shall not

extend further time for such purpose to the petitioner. On

production of such documents, the trial Court is directed to

forward the suit promissory note dated 15.12.2013, along with

those documents containing signatures of the petitioner

(defendant) to Truth Labs, Hyderabad, with a request to do the

needful. The petitioner is also directed to deposit Rs.10,000/-

(Rupees Ten thousand only) being the tentative amount for this

purpose to the credit of the above suit in the trial Court on or

before 17.07.2020. If the petitioner fails to produce those

documents, as described above, by 17.07.2020, the order passed

by the learned trial Judge in I.A.No.1251 of 2017 in O.S.No.310

of 2016, dated 18.11.2019 stands and holds good. No costs.

12. Pending miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed.

 ____________________

M.VENKATA RAMANA, J

Date: 23.06.2020

pab 

5

pab