The High Court · 2025

issued by the ptaintiff to the defendant and memorandum of 2 KL, J CRP No.l272 of2025 understanding, dated, 2l .10.2014 drafted and written by the plaintiff in his own writing executed among the parties to the suit and son_in_law of the defendant, and the same were denied by the plaintiff However the said documents were marked as Exs.Bl and 82 through petitioner - defendant during the course of his evidence. At that stage, the dcfendant filed an Interlocurory Application vide I.A. No.341 of 2024 in O.S.No. 125 of 201 g under Secrion _ 45 of the Act, I g72 to send Exs.Bl and 82 along with the admitted hand_writing of the plaintiff or to direct him to attend before the Court to take his hand_writing and srgnatures to send the same to the handwriting Expert for comparison on the ground that the hand_writings on Exs.Bl and ts2 are of the plaintiff and to prove the same, it is required to send them to the handwriting expen lor comparison.

5. The respondent _ plaintiff opposed the said petition contending that there is no refbrence with regard to Exs.tsr and 82 in the written sEtement and, therefore, the same cannot be sent for expert's opinion

6. After hearing both sides, vide order d,ated 05.03.2025, leamed trial Court dismissed the said application (I.A No.34l of I i ) 3 KI-. J CRP No I272 ot2025 2024) holding that the contents of Ex.B2 are contrary to the pleadings in the written statement and that there is no pleading in the writtcn statement with regard to Exs.Bl and 82 and, therefore' it is not necessary to send them to handrvriting expert'

7. Challenging the said order, dated 05'03'2024 in I'A'No 341 of 2024. the petitioner - defendant filed the present revision'

8. Mr. Ravikumar Vadlakonda, learned counsel lor the petitioner - defendant would submit that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if Exs.BI and. 82 are sent to the handwriting expctl' Though there is no refelence with regard to Exs B I and 82 in the written statement, the same were confronted to PW' 1 during cross- examination. Unless Exs.Bl and 82 are sent to hand-writing expert' the petitioner wilt not be in a position to prove his case that the subject promissory note was given by him to the plaintiff for securiry purpose' Therefore, the triat Court erred in dismissing the petition

9. On the other hand, Mr. Pochaiah Dorishetti, leamed counsel for the respondent would contend that the petitioner filed the present petition at the belated stage with an intention to drag on the proceedings. The petitioner did not plead in his written statement with :.Jt:)_ii 4 KI-, J CRP No 1272 of2025 regard ro existence of Exs.B I and 82, nor filed along with written statement and, therefore, he has not laid foundation to seek the relief under Section - 45 of the Act, 1972. Considering alt the said aspects, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition vrde impugred order and there is no error in it.

10. In view of the aforesaid rival submissions and perusal of record would reveal that the respondent - plaintilf filed the suit vide O.S. No.l25 of2018 against rhe petitioner _ defendant for recovery of Rs.6,88,000/- based on,Ex.AI - promissory note dated 15.07.2015 said to have executed by the petitioner in favour ofthe respondent. In the said suit, it is atleged by the respondenr that the petitioner and his son-in-law purchased house site plot near Apollo Reach Hospital, Karimangar from one Mr. Gajangi Madhusudha. The petitioner and his son-in-law were in dire need of money to pay the sale consideration amount, they approached the respondcnt and requested to provide an amount ofRs. 12.00 lakhs. Accordingly, the respondent paid an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs tfuough cheque bearing No.635391, dated 15.07.2015 of Andhra Bank in the name of the petitioner and an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs rhrough another cheque bearing No.650952 pe{alnrng to his account maintained in State Bank of Hyderabad in .l KI-. J CRP No l27l ol loli favour of son-in-law of the petitioner and Rs.3.00 lakhs in the lorm of cash in the presence of Mr. Kiran Kumar, Rajeshwar Rao. Kishore Chandra Reddy and one Mr. Keshava Reddy. Accordingly, thc petitioner herein executed suit promissory note scribed b1 Mr. Kishorc Chandra Reddy and witnessed by the aforesaid persons. The son-in- law of the petitioner also executed a separate promissory note lor Rs.8.00 lakhs received by him. As far as the suit transaction is concemed, the petitioner received an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs through the cheque dated 15.07.2015. Therefore, the respondent flled the atbresaid suit against the petitioner herein lor Rs.6.88,000/- i.c., principal amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs plus interest of Ik.2,88,000/- I l. Perusal of record would also reveal that the petitioncr herein filed his written statement denying the claim ol the respondcnt herein. ln the written statement, the petitioner contendod that he has entered into an agreement of sale in respect of land in Survcy No.307/B utd 307/D with one Mr. Anumalla Chandraiah. who is the client of the respondent herein on his behalf and on behalf ol thc respondent herein, who is also half share holder of the said land. [n view ol the same, the respondent has taken blank signed documents HftF:r1 ..,- 6 KL, J CRP No I272 of 2025 from the petitioner and his son-in-law, Mr. Dayasagar Rcddy, towards security only lor the settlement of tand. Later. thc said land was sold to one Mr. Narayana Reddy by the said Anumalla Chandraiah in collusion with the respondent. The respondent has to give the share amount of Mr. Dayasagar Reddy, but he is claiming amount by misusing the said security documents in his custody and filed false case against the son-in-law of the petitioner and also demanding amount from him. The rpspondent herein is a money lender without any license. The petitioner never borrowed the alleged amount or any amount from the respondent at any point of time' The witnesses to the alleged transaction are yes-men ofthe respondent'

12. While so, during the course of cross-examination of the plaintiff, the defendant's counsel posed certain questions to the plaintiff and the plaintiff - respondent answered thus: "I know the defendant since 2006 through my client and subsequently he became my family friend' I gave the amount to the defendant prior to this suit transaction also' I do not remember specific date of giving the amount to defendant, but it may be 2 years back prior to this suit transaction and I gave an amount of Rs'2,00'0001 and he repaid the said amount in the year of2017 It is truc except ,non"y transactions there are no land or any ikt. 7 KL. J CRP No 127? of l02i transactions among us. The document i.e., Memorandum of Understanding shown to the witness, he said that it is not scribed by me and also lhe signatue is also not belongs to me. I know one Anumula Chandraiah. Witness adds that he is no more. I do not know with regard to thc land transactions in between Anumula Chandraiah and thc defendant. The Xerox copy of agreement ol salc dated 26.07.2014 shown to the witness, he denied it and thcre is no such agreement in between myself, Ram Reddy and A. Chandraiah. The Anumula Chandraiah was my client. It is true the def'endant herein and the defendant in O.S. No.l18/2018 were need of money to purchase tho house site plot, I have not refrrember the Survey number of the said house site. but I filed the document ofthe housc site in OS.NO. I l8/2018 as Ex.A3. The receipt dated 22.|.2017 shown to the witness, he denied that it is not belongs to me. It is not lrue to suggest that as per the receipt dr.22.ll20ll , the defendant paid amount of Rs.2,00,0001 to me. [t is not true to suggest that the signaturc and writing on Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.10.2014 and the signature on agreement of sale dated 26.01.2011 and also writing and signature on reccipt dt.22.11.2017 are belongs to me, but now I am dcposing lalse....'' ".....It is not true to suggest that as per the Memorandurn of [-lnderstanding dt.21.10.2014 I gave the suit amount ro rho defendant to purchase the above said lands. It is not true to t \ 8 KI. J CRP No 1272 of 2025 suggest that I scribed the MoU, dt.21.10.2014 and also I put my signatue, but now I am denying the same."

13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is no doubt true that there is no reference with regard to Exs.B I and 82 in the written statement, but there is reference'with regard to land transaction being entered by the petitioner on his behalfand on behalfofthe respondent with one Mr. Anumalla Chandraiah. It appears that during the course ol cross-examination, learned counsel lor the pctitioner tried to get the answers from the respondent - plaintifT with regard to prior land transactions among the petitioner, his son-in-law and the respondent herein, and out of such exercise, he confronted with copies of receipt dated22.11.2017 and MOU dated 21.10.2014 to PW.l (PlaintilQ and the same were denied by the respondent - plaintiff herein. Thereiore, the petitioner - defendant had to mark the said denial documents in his chief-examination as Exs.B 1 and 82. Though the said documents were marked as Exs.Bl and B2, the same were denied by the plaintiff during cross-examination when confronted to him and, therefore, there is no option for the defendant except to send them to hand-writing expert and accordingly he sought such relief for comparison with the admitted\ignatures. -1 9 KI-. ] CRP No I272 ol 20:i

14. In this rcgard, it is relevant to extract Sections - 45 and 73 of the Act, I 872 and the same is as under "{5. Opinions of erperts.-When the Court has to lorrn an opinion upon a point of foreign lavv or of scicnce. or art. or as to identity of handwriting 2 [or fingcr impressions], thc opinions upon that point of pcrsons speciallv skilled in such foreign law, science or arl, I [or in questions as to identity of handwriting] 2 [or finger impressions] are relevant facts. Such persons arc ca lled cxperts- Illustralions (a) The question is, whether the death of A was caused by poison. 'fhe opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison by which A is supposed to have died, are relevant. (b) Ihe question is, whether A, at the time ofdoing a certain act. was. by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he was doing what rvas either wrong or contrary to la\4. I'he opinions ofexperts upon the question whether thc symptoms exhibited by A commonly show unsoundness of tnind, and whether such unsoundness of rnind usually renders persons incapable of knou,ing thc nature of the acts uhich they do, or of knowing that whar the) do is either wrong or contrary to law, arc relevant. rl; i '1 l.'.-:, I r/;1 :#.1 t .\ l0 KI.] CRP No 1272 o42025 (c) The question is, whether a certain document was writtcn by A. Another document is produced which is proved or admitted to have been written by A. The opinions of experts on the question whether the two documents were written by the same person or by different persons, are relevant." "73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with oahers admitted or proved.-In order to ascertain whethcr a signature, writing, or seal is that of the person by whom it, purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the, satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been wriften by such person. This section applies also, with any necessary modi fi cations, to fi nger-impressions."

15. Section 45 of the Act, 1872, inter alia, provides that the Court can call fbr evidence of experts to form an opinion regarding the gcnuincness of signatures and handwriting which are relied on by one party and disputed by another party. It is also relevant to note that the i I I I I I I I i I l I KL. J CRP No llTl ol lo:i power to seek cxpert opinion under Section 45 of the Act, 1872 is discretionary and depends on lacts of each case. The Courts under Section 73 ol' the Act. 1872 can themselves compare the signarures or handwriting. llowever. the l{on'ble Supreme Court has time and again cautioned that Courts cannot act as experts in all the cases. Unless it is glaringll,clear that the signanrres are same or are difflerent, the Courts should normallv call lor an opinion from the experts.

16. In State (Delhi Admn.) v. Pali Ramr, the Apex Court hcld that prudcnce rcquircs that a judge shall obtain expert opinion in the matters of conrparison trf handwriting. The relevant paragraph is extracted below,: ''30. 'l'he maftcr can be viewed lrom another angle. also. Although there is no legal bar to the Judge using his own eyes to compare the disputed writing u ith the admirted writing, even without the aid o1' the evidence of any handwriting expert, the Judgc should. as a mafter ol prudence and caution, hesitate to base his finding with regard to the identity ol'a handrvriting which lorms the sheer- anchrtr ol' the prosecution case against a person accuscd ol an oflence. solely on comparison made by himsclt-. It is therefore, not advisable that a (1979) 2 SCC t58 &-- I t) KL, J CRP No 1272 6f2025 Judge should take upon himself the task of comparing the admitted writing with the <lisputed one to find out whether the two agree with each other; and the prudent course is to obtain the opinion and assistance of an expert'"

17. In Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka2' the Apex Court held that where there is even stightest of doubt in the minds ol the Judge while comparing the admitted and disputed signaturcs. such signatures shall be sent for expert opinion under Section 45 of the Act, 1872. The relevant paragraphs are extractcd "37. This section consists of nvo parts. White the first part provides for comparison of signatue, finger impression, writing etc. allegedly written or made by a person with signature or writing etc' admined or proved to the satislaction of the Court to have been written by the same person, the second part empowers the Court to direct any person including an accused, present in Court, to give his specimen writing or fingerprints for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare it with the writing or signature allegedly made by that person. The section does not specifo by whom the comparison shalt be made. However, looking to r. ( rgv) T scc uo l) KL, J CRP No I272 ol202i the other provisions of the Act, it is clear that such comparison may eirher be made by a handwriting expert under Section 45 or by anyone familiar rvith the handwriting ol' thc person concerned as provided by Section 47 or by the Court itself.

38. As a matter of cxtreme caution and judicial sobriety, the Court should not normally take upon itself the responsibility of comparing the disputed signature with that of the admitted signature or handwriting and in the event of the slightest doubt, lcave the matter to the wisdom of experts. But this does not mean that thc Court has not the power to compare thc disputed signature with the admitted signature as this power'is clearly available under Section 73 of thc Act. [See: State (Dclhi Admn.) v. Pali Ram [(1979) 2 SCC 158 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 389 : ArR 1979 SC 141."

18. In Thiruvengadam Pillai v. Navaneethammalj, the Apex Court observed that it is riskv to arrive at a conclusion regarding signatures and hand\^,.riting without an expert opinion. 'I'he relevant paragraph is extracted below: " 16. While there is no doubt that Court can compare the dis Duted handwritine/ s nature/ the admitted impression with Iinper r. lzooty a scc sto ( &.. ia- ;J i I I : l L l4 KL. J CRf No 1272 of2025 handwritine/sienature/fi nger imDression. such comoarison bv Court without the assistance of anv exDert. has alwavs been considered to be hazardous and riskv. When it is said that there is no bar to a Court to compare the disputed finger impression with the admitted finger impression, it goes without saying that it can record an opinion or finding on such comparisoq only after an analysis of the characteristics of the admitted tinger impression and after veriSing whether the same characteristics are found in the disputed finger impression. Th. of the two "ornpr.ison thumb impregsions cannot be casual or by a mere glance- Further, a finding in the judgment that there appeared to be no marked differences between the admitted thumb impression and disputed thumb impression, without an].thing more, cannot be accepted as a valid finding that the disputed signature is of the person who has put the admitted thumb impression. Where the Court t'inds that the disputed finger impression and admitted thumb impression are clear and where the Court is in a position to identift the characteristics of tingerprints, the Court may record a finding on comparison, even in the absence of an expert's opinion. But where the disputed thumb impression is smudgy, vague or very light, the Court should not hazard a guess by a casual perusal." I l5 KI-, J (lRIrNo 1272 of2025

19. In Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthana. the Apex Court held that, the Courts while dealing with handrvriting or signahrres cannot itself act as an [:xper1. The relevant paragraph is extracted below: "28. The opinion of a handwriting expert is fallibte/liable to error Iike thar of any orhcr witness, and 1,et, ir cannot be brushed aside as useless. There is no legal bar to prevent the Court from comparing signatures or handwriting. by using its own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing and then from applying its own observation to provc the said handu,ritings to be the sam6 or difl'erent, as the case may be, hut in doing so, the Court cannot itself become an expert in this regard and must refrain from plal.ing the role of an expert. for thc simple reason thal. thc opinion of the Coun may also not be conclusivc. Therefore, when the Court takes such a task upon itself, and findings are recorded solely on the basis of comparison of signatures or handwritings. the Court must keep in rnind the risk involved. as Ihc opinion formed b1, the Court may not trc conclusive and is susceptible to error, especially when the exercise is conducted by one, not conversant with the subject. Thc Court, thereforc. (2012) r2 scc 406 .4.- ' tsj'#:*:l ( t6 KL, J CR" No 1272 of2025 \i \ as a matter of prudence and caution should hesitate or be slow to base its findings solely upon the comparison made by it. l{owever, where there is an opinion u'hcther of an expert, or of any witness, the Court may thcn appty its own observation by comparing the signatures, or handu,itings for providing a decisive weight or influence to its decision."

20. In Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v Regency HosPital Limiteds, the Apex Court held as under: "An expert is not a witness of lact and his evidence is really of an advisory character' The duty of an expert witness is to fumish the Judge with the necessary scicntific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the Judge to ftrrm his independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. The scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested becomes a lactor and often an important factor for consideration along with other evidence of the case. The credibitity ofsuch a witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and material furnished whichform the basis of his conclusions. (See Malay Kumar Ganguly vs. Dr.Sukumar Mukherjee and '. AIR 20lo sc 806 t7 Kt_. l CRP No 1272 ol 202i others) [Criminal Appeal Nos.l 19l-l194 of 2005 along with Civil Appeal No.l727 of 2007 ,, decided on 7.8.20091".

21. Therefore, in vieu, of lhe dicta in the abovc decisions, it can be said that Courts shall normally seek expcrt opinion when thcy are posed with a situation where they have to compare admitted and disputed signatures. The Courts can refuse expert opinion only when no doubt exists regarding the genuineness oF thc signaturcs alter comparison of the admitted and disputed signatures. [n cases whero even a slightest doubt exists, the Courts shall scnd the admitted and disputed signatures for'expcrt opinion under Scction .{5 of the Act,

22. ln the light of the aforesaid discussion. coming ro the facts of the present case, as discussed supra, the petitioncr - delendant laid foundation by confronting Exs.B I and 82 to PW. I during his cross- examination though not direct reference with rcgard to rhe same in his written statement. However, as discussed above. thcrc is a ref-erencc with regard to land dealings befween the petitioner and the respondcnt herein and also the son-in-law of the petitioner. As the respondcnt denied about his hand-writings on Exs.B I and 82, rhe samc werc 7 u#' r-*d '1 L l8 KI-, J CRP No 1272 or2025 marked tkough the petitioner - delcndant in his chief-examination. Since the same were markcd as [rxs.[] I and 82 and since the same were denied by the respondent - plaintiff, the petitioner has no option except to prove the same by sending to handwriting expert for comparison with the admitted signarures. Therefore, he filed the petition under Section - 45 of the Act. I 872

23. When a suit for recovcry of money based on promissory note and when such document is dcnied by the other side contending that it was not executed lor hand loan, but it was given as a security purpose in respect ofa land dealing transaction and to prove that there were land dealing transactions bctween the petitioner and the respondent as in Exs.B 1 and 82, which were denied by the plaintiff, the only remedy left for the trial Court is to obtain expert's opinion by sending Exs.B I and Il2 lor expert to compare the .opinion handwritings on Exs.B I and 82 with that of admitted handwritings of the ptaintiff. In fact, that is the ob.icct of Section - 45 ofthe Act, 1872.

24. Thus, it is just and neccssary to send Exs.Bl and 82 for expert's opinion to compare the handwritings and signatures on them rbiqh the admitted handwritings and signatures of the plaintiff to be CRP \o llTl oll0l5 obtained in Open Court. Even if the said documents are sent fbr KI,. J l9 expert's opinion, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent herein. When there is specific denial by the respondcnt that t_he handwritings on Exs.Bl and Il2 do not belong to him. it is not sal'e to reject the present petition. The said principle was also reiterated by this Court in Katike Bhecm Shankar v. Mrs. T. Laxmi (@ Punyavathi6. The said aspects werc not considered bv the trial Court. Thus, the order under challenge in this revision is liablc to bc set aside.

25. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, thc present Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 05.03.2024 passed by leamed Principal Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, in [.A. No.34l of 2024 in O.S. No.t25 of 2018. I.A. No.i-Il ol 2024 is allowed, and the trial Court is directed to send Exs. B t and 82 along with admitted handwritings of the respondent - ptaintiff and signatures available on Vakalat, plaint etc., and if the handw.rirings arc not available, the same may be taken in the Open Court and send them along with Exs.Bl and 82 to handwriting expert for comparison with the admitted signatures and handwritings and obtain his report as early o. c.R.P. No-t939 0f 2022. decided on20.12.2022 I I gj, I&+,..-- ". 20 KL, J CRP No 1272 of2O2i as possible so as to proceed with further in the aforesaid suit. The petitioner shall bear the cost of the said report. In the circumstances of the cases, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the revision shall stand closed //TRUE COPYII ; SD/. M.OSMAN .ALI BAIG A SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER i I I I To, 1 Principal Senior Civil Judge at Karrmnagar

2. One CC to SRt VADLAKONDA RAV| KUMAR REDDy Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to SRI POCHA|AH DORTSHETTT Advocate tOpUCJ 4. Two CD Copies SS/gh s ; /l, HIGH COURT DATED:0710712025 .4.4, . { \i\ ./' 'tHE S tA l. -_ li.,- It -': \\e.. 2 5 il|l 2il25 t'> u:' ORDER CRP.No.1272 ol 2025 ALLOWING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS (dnt?' 6- z-+\r\rr L-