Telangana High Court
Kapula Sebastian vs Bhukya Bicha on 11 September, 2025
The Hon'ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara
Civil Revision Petition No.2329 of 2024
Order:
This is a Civil Revision Petition preferred by the
petitioner/petitioner/defendant aggrieved by the order
05.07.2024 passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil
Judge at Kothagudem in favour of respondent/respondent/
plaintiff in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.44 of 2019.
2. Heard Sri Subba Rao Vadrevu, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Smt. Sureddy Priyanka, learned counsel for
the respondent. Perused the record.
3. The petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 45 of
the Indian Evidence Act to refer the promissory note dated
02.08.2016 to a handwriting expert for comparison with
admitted signatures on vakalath and written statement.
4. The respondent herein filed a suit for recover of money
on the basis of pronote dated 02.08.2016 which according to
the petitioner herein is a forged document. The said
document is not supported by consideration and the
signature therein is a forged signature. The petitioner denied
acquaintance with respondent, denied his signature on the
promissory and therefore, sought the comparison of signature
on promissory note with admitted signatures on vakalath and
written statement. Said petition was opposed by the
respondent herein alleging that the promissory note is
supported by consideration. The evidence of the petitioner
herein is closed in the main suit and at the fag end of trial,
the petition is filed only to protract the proceedings. Upon
considering the arguments of both the parties, the Trial Court
came to the conclusion that the promissory note is of the year
2016 whereas vakalath and written statement are of the year
2019. There are no contemporaneous signatures and
therefore, the Court itself can compare the signatures, as
such, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by said order, the
present revision is preferred.
5. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the Trial Court
erred in holding that there are no contemporaneous
signatures to compare the suit promissory note when the
signatures are disputed and the very execution of the
document is disputed. There is a need to send the document
to hand writing expert for opinion and that no prejudice
would be caused to the respondent in case the signatures are
sent to hand writing expert for opinion. The petitioner alleged
that the right of the Court to compare the disputed signature
under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act is erroneous and
therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
6. The learned counsel or the petitioner relied upon
judgment of this Court between Bande Siva Shankara
Srinivasa Prasad v. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu and others 1,
wherein, the following issues have been considered:
"27. It is essentially within the judicious discretion of
the Court, depending on the individual facts and
circumstances of the case before it, to seek or not to seek
expert opinion as to the comparison of the disputed
handwriting/signature with the admitted handwriting/
signature under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872. The Court is however not barred from sending the
disputed handwriting/signature for comparison to an
expert merely because the time gap between the admitted
handwriting/signature and the disputed handwriting/
signature is long. The Court must however endeavour to
impress upon the petitioning party that comparison of
disputed handwritings/signatures with admitted
handwritings/signatures, separated by a time lag of 2 to 3
years, would be desirable so as to facilitate expert
comparison in accordance with satisfactory standards. That
being said, there can be no hard and fast rule about this
2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 467
aspect and it would ultimately be for the expert concerned
to voice his conclusion as to whether the disputed
handwriting/ signature and the admitted
handwriting/signature are capable of comparison for a
viable expert opinion. The view expressed by the Division
Bench in JANACHAITANYA HOUSING LIMITED v. DIVYA
FINANCIERS, as to the stage of the proceedings when an
application can be moved by a party under Section 45 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, continues to hold the field
and there is no necessity for this Full Bench to address that
issue."
7. No doubt, Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act
empowers a Judge to take up the task of comparison of
disputed 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 hand writing.
8. In view of the ratio laid down by this Court in Bande
Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad (1 supra), this Court deems
it just and necessary that the relief sought for by the
petitioner be granted.
9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed
setting aside the order dated 05.07.2024 passed by the
learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem in
I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.44 of 2019. Consequently, I.A.No.1
of 2023 in O.S.44 of 2019 is allowed with a direction to refer
the disputed signature to be compared with the admitted
signatures of the petitioner on vakalath and written
statement. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
___________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 11.09.2025
gvl
