CRP/799/2026 of Chepala Bangarayya, Vs Karanam Narasimha Murthy, on 1 April 2026

ORDER:

The defendants are the petitioners. The plaintiff/respondent filed O.S.No.15 of 2022 for recovery of the amount based on the promissory note/Ex.A1.

2. The petitioners/defendants inter alia denied their signatures and the execution of promissory note/Ex.A1. They filed I.A.No.236 of 2025 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to send the disputed promissory note for expert opinion with respect to the signatures.

3. The plaintiff/respondent filed objection/counter.

4. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chodavaram, has dismissed I.A.No.236 of 2025 on 10.12.2025 and challenging the same, the present C.R.P has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. The rejection is on the ground that the defendants/petitioners, did not submit nor mentioned about any contemporaneous document containing the admitted signatures of the defendants.

6. As per the impugned order, the learned counsel for the defendants before the learned Trial Court also, submitted that no contemporaneous document containing the admitted signatures of the defendants were available.

7. Considering the same as also the judgments as mentioned therein viz. Dundi Mohan Rao v. Ponnada Gangadhar (2022 (6) ALT 81(AP), Rellu Rambabu v. Adapa Srinivasa Rao (2024(3) ALT 215 (AP), Zahed Shareef v. Abdul Hasan (Civil Revision Petition No.2272/2024 dated 27.09.2024), Yenni Venkata Ramana v. Boyana Ramesh Kumar (2024(6) ALT 736(AP), Krishna Susheela v. Khadeerunnisa (Civil Revision Petition No.393/2025 dated 24.03.2025) and Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad v. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu (2016(2) ALD 1 FB, the learned Trial Court rejected the petition observing that in the absence of the contemporaneous documents containing the admitted signatures of the defendants, which were not available to the Court, the promissory note could not be send for comparision of signatures.

8. Ms.P.Vijaya Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute about the non-availability of the contemporaneous documents containing any admitted signatures of the defendants. She, however, placing reliance in the case of Kapula Sebastian v. Bhukya Bicha1 of the Telangana High Court, submits that in the absence of contemporaneous documents, the learned Trial Court ought to have taken the signatures in the open Court and from those signatures the disputed signatures could have been tallied.

1 2025(3) Law Summary 169

9. Para No.7 of Kapula Sebastian (supra), reads as under: “No doubt, Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act empowers a judge to take up the task of comparison comparison of deputed signature with admitted signatures. However, the Indian Evidence Act also makes a provision for seeking expert opinion whenever there is dispute about the genuineness of the signatures or the hand writing in a given document. In the instant case, there is disputed signature on the revenue stamp of the year 2016 and there are admitted signatures of the year 2019. The Trial Court could have summoned some other documents which are admittedly signed by the petitioner herein in the year 2016 or send the available signatures on vakalath and written statement to be compared with the disputed signatures. A gap of three years may not be considered a huge gap for bringing about the significant change in the handwriting.”

10. In Kapula Sebastian (supra), there were contemporaneous documents of the year 2019 and the disputed signature in that case was in the year 2016. So, there were contemporaneous documents, which were within the period of three years from the date of promissory note and the Telangana High Court held that the gap of three years was not a huge gap.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the present case, the promissory note is of the year 2019. The suit was filed in the year 2022. So the gap from the date of promissory note and the institution of the suit is within three years. Consequently, the judgment in Kapula Sebastian(supra) of the Telangana High Court applies.

12. This Court is of the view that the aforesaid submission advanced is misconceived. The reason is that in Kapula Sebastian (supra), the gap is bet two documents, one, the disputed signature on the promissory note, and the other document of contemporaneous nature. In the present case, there is no document of contemporaneous nature and the signature is only on the promissory note. The gap between date of filing of the suit and the date of promissory note is not relevant nor the judgement cited speaks about any such gap.

13. In the present case, there are no contemporaneous documents.

14. So far as the view taken by the Telangana High Court that the Court ought to have taken the signatures on vakalat and the written statement to be compared with the disputed signatures, this Court with respect, is not in agreement with the view taken by the Telangana High Court.

15. The law is well settled in the case of Pentakota Janaki v. Bora Srinivasa Reddy 2 that the signatures of the defendant on the vakalat or written statement field after receipt of the notices of the suit cannot be sent for comparison with the disputed signatures. The reason appears to be obvious that after receipt of the notice/summons of the suit vide the plaint, the defendant may make his signatures on the vakalat as also in the written statement, differently.

16. The relevant para No.17 in Pentakota Janaki (supra) reads as under: “17. In the present case, the application has not been rejected on the ground that there was time gap of two years or more. But, the ground of rejection is that, the defendant/petitioner received the summons of the suit on 07.11.2022 along with the copy of the promissory note. He thereafter, applied to the bank for opening of 2 2025 SCC OnLine AP 461

the account on 17.11.2022. So, there was possibility of changing the signatures in such application form, which signature cannot be on the contemporaneous document nor an admitted signature inspiring confidence for the purpose of comparison with the disputed signatures. It is also well settled in law that the signatures of the defendant on the vakalat or written statement filed after receipt of the notices of the suit cannot be sent for comparison with the disputed signatures. The same reasoning and the ratio can be applied in the present case also with respect to the signatures on the saving bank account opening form for opening the account after the receipt of the summons of the suit and the copy of the promissory note.”

17. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.

18. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

19. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

Date: 02.04.2026. Pab