send the disputed signatures on the promissory note to the Handwriting Expert for comparison with the admitted signatures and give opinion.-raised objection that the signatures on photocopy cannot be compared with the signatures available on disputed documents held that Admittedly, the respondent/plaintiff did not take any steps as per law to secure the original document either from the revision-petitioner/defendant or the person, who is having the custody of the original. It is not the case of the respondent/ plaintiff that the original Registered Sale Deed, dated 23.11.2005 is not available. Under those circumstances, sending photocopy to an Expert will not serve any purpose.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

MONDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

PRSENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2716 OF 2015

Between:

1. AINAMPUDI LALITHA PRASAD, E.G.DIST S/o Sarveswara Rao,

Aged about 50 years, HinduiPusiness,

R/o D.No. 66-1-5/1, Venkatjuram,

Ramadasupeta, Rajahmundryo

East Godavari District.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND:

1. GONELA SUBRAMANYAM, E.G.DIST S/o Venkataratnam,

Aged about 59 years, Hindu, Business,

R/o D.No.64-37-12, Ratnampeta,

Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

...RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): CHANDRA SEKHAR ILAPAKURTI

Counsel for the Respondents: VENKAT CHALLA

The Court made the following: ORDER

2023:APHC:10472

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

****

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.2716, 2736 & 3228 OF 2015

(In CRP No.2716 of 2015)

Between:

Ainampudi Lalitha Prasad, S/o. Sarveswara Rao, 50 years,

Hindu, Business, R/o. D.No.66-1-5/1, Venkatapuram,

Ramadasupeta, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

… Petitioner

 Versus

Gonela Subramanyam, S/o. Venkataratnam, 59 years,

Hindu, Business, R/o.D.No.64-37-12, Ratnampeta,

Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

 ... Respondent

(In CRP No.2736 of 2015)

Between:

Ainampudi Lalitha Prasad, S/o. Sarveswara Rao, 50 years,

Hindu, Business, R/o.D.No.66-1-5/1, Venkatapuram,

Ramadasupeta, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

… Petitioner

 Versus

Gonela Subramanyam, S/o. Venkataratnam, 59 years,

Hindu, Business, R/o. D.No.64-37-12, Ratnampeta,

Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

 ... Respondent

(In CRP No.3228 of 2015)

Between:

Ainampudi Lalitha Prasad, S/o. Sarveswara Rao, 50 years,

Hindu, Business, R/o. D.No.66-1-5/1, Venkatapuram,

Ramadasupeta, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

… Petitioner

 Versus

Gonela Subramanyam, S/o. Venkataratnam, 59 years,

Hindu, Business, R/o. D.No.64-37-12, Ratnampeta,

Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

 ... Respondent

* * * * *

2023:APHC:10472

Page 2 of 10

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 03.04.2023.

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

 may be allowed to see the Order? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Order may be

 marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the

 fair copy of the Order? Yes/No

_____________________________

 B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J

2023:APHC:10472

Page 3 of 10

* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.2716, 2736 & 3228 OF 2015

% 03.04.2023

(In CRP No.2716 of 2015)

#Between:

Ainampudi Lalitha Prasad, S/o. Sarveswara Rao, 50 years,

Hindu, Business, R/o. D.No.66-1-5/1, Venkatapuram,

Ramadasupeta, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

… Petitioner

 Versus

Gonela Subramanyam, S/o. Venkataratnam, 59 years,

Hindu, Business, R/o.D.No.64-37-12, Ratnampeta,

Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

 ... Respondent

(In CRP No.2736 of 2015)

#Between:

Ainampudi Lalitha Prasad, S/o. Sarveswara Rao, 50 years,

Hindu, Business, R/o.D.No.66-1-5/1, Venkatapuram,

Ramadasupeta, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

… Petitioner

 Versus

Gonela Subramanyam, S/o. Venkataratnam, 59 years,

Hindu, Business, R/o. D.No.64-37-12, Ratnampeta,

Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

 ... Respondent

(In CRP No.3228 of 2015)

#Between:

Ainampudi Lalitha Prasad, S/o. Sarveswara Rao, 50 years,

Hindu, Business, R/o. D.No.66-1-5/1, Venkatapuram,

Ramadasupeta, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

… Petitioner

 Versus

Gonela Subramanyam, S/o. Venkataratnam, 59 years,

Hindu, Business, R/o. D.No.64-37-12, Ratnampeta,

Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

 ... Respondent

2023:APHC:10472

Page 4 of 10

! Counsel for the Revision-petitioner

in CRP Nos.2716, 2736 & 3228 of

2015

:: Sri Chandra Sekhar

 Ilampakurti

^ Counsel for the Respondent in CRP

Nos.2716, 2736 & 3228 of 2015

:: Sri Ch.Dhanamjaya

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. 2006 (4) ALD 295.

2. 2021 SCC OnLine AP 3670.

3. 2015 (1) ALD (Crl.) 995.

This Court made the following:

2023:APHC:10472

Page 5 of 10

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.2716, 2736 & 3228 of 2015

C O M M O N O R D E R:

Heard Sri Chandra Sekhar Ilapakurti, learned counsel for

revision-petitioner/respondent/defendant and Sri Venkat

Challa, learned counsel for respondent/petitioner/plaintiff.

2. Applications in I.A.Nos.241, 242 and 243 of 2015 are filed

by the respondent/petitioner/plaintiff under Section 45 of the

Evidence Act, 1872 to obtain handwriting of revision-petitioner/

respondent/defendant and send the disputed signatures on the

promissory note to the Handwriting Expert for comparison with

the admitted signatures and give opinion.

3. The Trial Court ‘Allowed’ the applications on 21.04.2015,

though the revision-petitioner/respondent/defendant raised

objection that the signatures on photocopy cannot be compared

with the signatures available on disputed documents.

4. The learned counsel for revision-petitioner would submit

that the respondent/petitioner/plaintiff did not take any steps

to get original of the photocopy filed in the Court to send the

2023:APHC:10472

Page 6 of 10

original to the Expert for comparison of the handwriting and

signatures available on a photocopy cannot be made by an

Expert. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the

Judgment of this Court in Bheri Nageswara Rao vs. Mavuri

Veerabhadra Rao and others1 at para Nos.4 and 5 held as

under:

“4. Section 45 of the Act enables the Court to obtain

the opinion of an expert on various aspects, including the

one relating to the comparison of disputed signatures. An

expert would be in a position to render his opinion, only

when the original of the document containing the

disputed signature is forwarded to him. Further, there

can be effective comparison and verification of the

signatures, if only another document containing the

undisputed signatures of the contemporary period are

made available to the expert.

5. The opinion of a hand writing expert involves the

analysis of the slant, which a person uses in the matter

of putting his signature, and in some cases, the point of

time, at which it may have been subscribed. These

analyses would become possible only vis-a-vis an

original signature; and the signature mark, on a Xerox

copy of a document can never constitute the basis.”

1 2006 (4) ALD 295.

2023:APHC:10472

Page 7 of 10

5. In the light of above contentions, the point for

consideration is as under:

“Whether the Trial Court committed any

irregularity in the Common Order passed in

I.A.Nos.241, 242 and 243 of 2015 in O.S.No.695 of

2006, dated 21.04.2015?

6. P O I N T: -

In the case on hand, admittedly, the respondent/

petitioner/plaintiff filed certified photocopy of Registered Sale

Deed, dated 23.11.2005, stating that it contains the signatures

of the revision-petitioner/defendant and those signatures can be

compared with the disputed signatures available on the suit

promissory note. The revision-petitioner/defendant raised an

objection that the signatures available on a photocopy are not fit

for comparison and no purpose would be served by sending the

photocopy to the Expert. In spite of said objection, the plaintiff

did not take any steps for production of the original document,

as per law.

7. The learned Trial Judge while rejecting the contention of

the revision-petitioner/defendant held as under:

2023:APHC:10472

Page 8 of 10

“It is the duty of the Expert to say whether the said

signature is fit for examination or not. Further, while

deposing as D.W.1, the defendant/respondent reported that

he has no objection to send the disputed signature to the

expert.”

8. Not only in the case relied on by the learned counsel for

revision-petitioner/defendant, which was referred supra, this

Court also in T.Lakshmi Theresamma vs. State Of Andhra

Pradesh2 after considering the signatures available on a copy

and whether they can be send to an expert for comparison

purpose with the disputed signatures, held as under:

“A Photostat copy is a copy taken from mechanical process.

If the entries are shown accurately as in the original patta,

there is a possibility of arriving at such conclusion. But, the

mechanical process does not show the accuracy on account

of blurred signatures/defective photo copying. Therefore,

such comparison is impermissible under law, as there is

every possibility of change of signatures due to passage of

time and there is every possibility to sign on the documents

in disguise, so as to obtain a favourable opinion from the

handwriting expert. But, what is required as per law is

that, any authentic contemporaneous document containing

signatures of the parties has to be referred along with the

disputed signatures for comparison and opinion.”

2 2021 SCC OnLine AP 3670.

2023:APHC:10472

Page 9 of 10

9. A similar question came up before this Court in P.

Kusuma Kumari vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another3

wherein this Court held that “disputed signature is required to

be referred to the expert along with admitted signatures of the

party, the Court is bound to refer the document by exercising

power under Section 73.”

10. Admittedly, the respondent/plaintiff did not take any

steps as per law to secure the original document either from the

revision-petitioner/defendant or the person, who is having the

custody of the original. It is not the case of the respondent/

plaintiff that the original Registered Sale Deed, dated

23.11.2005 is not available. Under those circumstances,

sending photocopy to an Expert will not serve any purpose.

11. Therefore, the Trial Court ignored the material fact that

the respondent/plaintiff did not take any steps for securing the

original and simply filed the photocopy alleging that it contains

the signatures of the revision-petitioner/defendant, thereby,

committed material irregularity. In the light of above

circumstances, the revision-petition is deserved to be allowed by

setting-aside the Common Order passed by the Trial Court in

3 2015 (1) ALD (Crl.) 995.

2023:APHC:10472

Page 10 of 10

I.A.No.241, 242 and 243 of 2015 in O.S.No.695 of 2006, dated

21.04.2015.

12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are ‘Allowed’.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J

3rd April, 2023.

DNB

2023:APHC:10472