CRP/200/2025 of CHEBOINA SOMESWARI Vs INTI VARA LAKSHMI on 7 April 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 20.08.2024 passed in I.A.No.386 of 2023 in O.S.No.316 of 2019 by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem.

2. The petitioner is the defendant while the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.316 of 2019.

3. The facts that led to filing of the Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that, in the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of the amount due under a promissory note said to have been executed by the petitioner; the petitioner filed petition vide I.A.No.386 of 2023 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send RC,J

the Ex.A1 promissory note to handwriting expert for comparison of the signature contained thereon with the admitted signature of the petitioner on the documents available on record. The respondent resisted the said claim by filing counter contending that the petition has been filed only to drag on the proceedings and moreover the Court itself can examine the documents as provided in the Evidence Act and that there are no merits in the petition and the same has to be dismissed.

(ii) The learned trial Judge upon considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the material available on record dismissed the petition holding that except stating that the signature on the suit promissory note has to be compared with her admitted signature on the documents, the description of the documents is neither mentioned nor produced before the Court.

(iii) The said dismissal order has been assailed in this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard Sri V.Satyanarayana Nekkanti, learned counsel for the petitioner and none for the respondent.

RC,J

5. Sri V.Satyanarayana Nekkanti, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition in trial Court and grounds of Civil Revision Petition would contend that the trial Court instead of giving an opportunity to the petitioner for filing the documents containing admitted signatures, erroneously dismissed the petition. He would further contended that petitions under section 45 of the Evidence Act can be filed at any stage of the suit and mere delay in filing the petition cannot be a ground to dismiss the petition and therefore the order of the learned trial Judge is perverse and the same has to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

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

7. No strict time limit is fixed for filing a petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send documents for expert opinion. Such applications can be filed at any stage of the trial, including after the evidence is closed, based on the facts, circumstances, and exigencies of each case. Therefore, delay in filing the petition and the stage of the suit at which such a petition was filed cannot always be a ground for dismissal of the petition.

RC,J

8. The prime ground which prompted the learned trial Judge in dismissing the petition is non-production and non-mentioning of the documents containing the admitted signatures of the petitioner.

9. No doubt, the petitioner except stating that the signature on the suit promissory note has to be compared with the signature contained on the documents available in the suit record, did not specify the documents nor did he file any documents containing her admitted signatures.

10. While Section 45 allows for expert opinion, procedural fairness and the need to establish a basis for comparison are crucial. The material used for comparison must meet high standards of accuracy and authenticity. The reliability of expert evidence is directly dependent on the quality of the data or material provided to them.

11. Therefore, reliable comparing material plays a pivotal role in the matters of comparison of the signatures by the expert.

12. The specific contention of the defendant is that the suit promissory note is a rank forgery and now she wants to get her signature on the promissory note compared with her admitted signatures. Admittedly, no specific document containing her admitted signature is neither mentioned nor produced. However, RC,J

the said defect can be cured by directing the petitioner to file the reliable comparing material containing her signatures for sending to handwriting expert along with the suit promissory note, instead of dismissing the petition.

13. In the above view of the matter, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part, setting aside the dismissal order dated 20.08.2024 passed in I.A.No.386 of 2023 in O.S.No.316 of 2019 by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tadepalligudem. Consequently, I.A.No.386 of 2023 is allowed and the learned trial Judge shall post the matter for filing comparing material by the petitioner with a fair and reasonable opportunity to the respondent to file objections and thereupon consider the authenticity and reliability of the comparing material and if found to be within the parameters, send them along with suit promissory note to expert or else to dismiss the petition. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 8TH April, 2026.

RR