CRP/2743/2025 of ALLADA VENKATA SUBBA RAO Vs MULLAPUDI SRINIVAS on 7 May 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 06.08.2025 passed in I.A.No.292 of 2025 in O.S.No.143 of 2019 by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Palakol.

2. The Civil Revision Petitioner is defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.143 of 2019.

3. The facts that led to filing of the Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that respondent filed O.S.No.143 of 2019 for recovery of amount due under suit promissory note said to have been executed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed petition vide I.A.No.292 of 2025 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for sending the documents to Truth Labs, Hyderabad for comparing the disputed with his admitted signatures. The respondent resisted the claim made in the petition by filing counter contending that earlier the petition filed vide I.A.No2370 of 2019 was allowed and the documents were sent for comparison to handwriting expert at APSFSL, who returned them stating that he could not come to any conclusive opinion and hence again RC,J

sending the documents to Truth Laboratory would be a futile exercise. The learned trial Judge upon considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the petition. The said dismissal order has been assailed in this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard Sri A.Lalith, learned counsel, representing Sri G.Yaswanth, learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite served with notice, none represented the respondent.

5. Sri A.Lalith, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition in trial Court and grounds of Revision Petition would contend that the forged nature of the promissory note would only come to light if the same is sent to expert for comparison of disputed and admitted signatures and as the earlier handwriting expert returned the documents being unable to come to any conclusive opinion, the petitioners, now want to send the documents to Truth Lab for comparison. He would further contend that the learned trial Judge erroneously dismissed the petition on the sole ground that the petitioner had not filed the contemporary signatures of the year 2016 and no purpose would be served in sending the documents, thereby denied the opportunity to the petitioners to effectively defend the case by disproving the promissory note and accordingly prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

RC,J

6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. The contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the material available on record would disclose that earlier the petitioner filed petition vide I.A.No.1198 of 2019 and the said petition was allowed and the documents were sent to handwriting expert, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Mangalagiri, but the said handwriting expert returned the documents stating that he could not come to any conclusive opinion based on those documents. Now the petitioners want to send the documents to handwriting expert at Truth Laboratory for comparison. The correspondence sent by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Mangalagiri dated 11.04.2025 discloses that any conclusive opinion could not be drawn on the available standards.

9. It is a settled law that expert opinion is not a conclusive proof and sole evidence of a handwriting expert is not sufficient and safe to reach a conclusion, which is a weak type of evidence, cannot solely be relied on without there being any cogent evidence. However, in view of the specific contention raised by the petitioner that the suit promissory note is outcome of forgery, this Court is of the considered opinion that sending the document to an handwriting expert would meet the ends of justice.

RC,J

10. In view of the above, to strike a balance between the claims and counter claims, instead of sending the document to Truth Lab, this court deems it appropriate to send the document to Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, as held by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 09.08.2023 passed in CRP No.1102 of 2023, in similar facts and circumstances of the case on hand.

11. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 06.08.2025 passed in I.A.No.292 of 2025 in O.S.No.143 of 2019 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakol along with other documents be transmitted to the Director, Central Forensic Science Labouratory, Ramanthpur, Hyderabad, for comparison and report. The petitioners shall bear the necessary expenditure. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 8TH May, 2026.

RR