Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Patta Sathibabu vs Akkala Sarve Vijaya Kumar on 31 October, 2025
1
VS,J
C.R.P.No.2681 of 2023 & Batch
APHC010523962023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3333]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2681/2023
Between:
1. PATTA SATHIBABU, S/O.(LATE) APPALA RAJU AGED 59 YEARS,
BUSINESS, D.NO.15-11-13, SATYA PRASANNA NAGAR, KAKINADA
EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
AND
1. AKKALA SARVE VIJAYA KUMAR, S/O(LATE) PRABHAKARA RAO,
AGED 57 YEARS, EMPLOYEE, JUDICIAL COLONY,
RAJARAJESWARIPETA, OPP.NEW MOSQUE, I TOWN,
VIJAYAWADA.
2. ANKALA ANANTHALAKSHMI, W/O. ANKALA SARVE VIJAYA KUMAR
AGED 51 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, JUDICIAL COLONY,
RAJARAJESWARIPETA, OPP.NEW MOSQUE, I TOWN,
VIJAYAWADA.
3. KOMMU RAVINDRANADH TAKOOR, S/O.(LATE) SIMHACHALAM,
(DIED) AGED 71 YEARS, D.NO.3-20-4/3A, RAMAMANOHARRAJA
NAGAR, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
4. KOMMU NIRMALA DEVI, D/O.(LATE) SIMHACHALAM, (DIED) AGED
71 YEARS, D.NO.3-20-4/3A, RAMAMANOHARRAJA NAGAR,
KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
5. CHINTALA CHIRANJEEVI, S/O.VENKUNAIDU, AGED 56 YEARS,
D/NO.2-58-3, SANTHINAGAR, KAKINADA (DIED)
2
VS,J
C.R.P.No.2681 of 2023 & Batch
6. CHINTALA GAYATRI, W/O.(LATE) CHINTALA CHIRANJEEVI AGED
45 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, D.NO.334, 1ST FLOOR, NETAJI ROAD,
AYYAPPA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA.
7. CHINTALA PARNIKA, D/O.(LATE) CHINTALA CHIRANJEEVI AGED 20
YEARS, STUDENT, AGED 20 YEARS, D.NO.334, 1ST FLOOR,
NETAJI ROAD, AYYAPPA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA. (BEING MINOR
REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN CHINTALA
GAYATRI)
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the
circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be
pleased topleased to allow the revision and set aside the order in I.A.No.1449
of 2023 in O.S.No.214 of 2014, dated 21.09.2023, on the file of the IIIrd
Additional District Judge, Kakinada and consequently allow the petition in
I.A.No.1449 of 2023 in O.S.No.214 of 2014 and grant
IA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.214 of 2014, on the
file of the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Kakinada, pending disposal of the
C.R.P., and grant
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
pleased to extend the interim stay passed in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in
CRP.No.2681 of 2023 dated 06.11.2023 which was filed against O.S.No.214
of 2014, on the file of the Illrd Additional District Judge, Kakinada, which
extended from time to time, pending disposal of the C.R.P., and grant
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M BALANAGA SRINIVAS
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. T V JAGGI REDDY
3
VS,J
C.R.P.No.2681 of 2023 & Batch
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2682/2023
Between:
1. PATTA SATHIBABU, S/O.(IATE) APPALA RAJU AGED 59 YEARS,
BUSINESS, D.NO.15-11-13, SATYA PRASANNA NAGAR, KAKINADA
EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
AND
1. ANKALA SARVE VIJAYA KUMAR, S/O(IATE) PRABHAKARA RAO,
AGED 57 YEARS, EMPLOYEE, JUDICIAL COLONY,
RAJARAJESWARIPETA, OPP.NEW MOSQUE, I TOWN,
VIJAYAWADA.
2. ANKALA ANANTHALAKSHMI, W/O. ANKALA SARVE VIJAYA KUMAR
AGED 51 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, JUDICIAL COLONY,
RAJARAJESWARIPETA, OPP.NEW MOSQUE, I TOWN,
VIJAYAWADA.
3. KOMMU RAVINDRANADH TAKOOR, S/O.(LATE) SIMHACHALAM,
(DIED) AGED 71 YEARS, D.NO.3-20-4/3A, RAMAMANOHARRAJA
NAGAR, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
4. KOMMU NIRMALA DEVI, D/O.(LATE) SIMHACHALAM,(DIED) AGED
71 YEARS, D.NO.3-20-4/3A, RAMAMANOHARRAJA NAGAR,
KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT
5. CHINTALA CHIRANJEEVI, S/O.VENKUNAIDU, AGED 56 YEARS,
D/NO.2-58-3, SANTHINAGAR, KAKINADA(DIED)
6. CHINTALA GAYATRI, W/O.(LATE) CHINTALA CHIRANJEEVI AGED
45 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, D.NO.334, 1ST FLOOR, NETAJI ROAD,
AYYAPPA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA.
7. CHINTALA PARNIKA, , D/O.(LATE) CHINTALA CHIRANJEEVI AGED
20 YEARS, STUDENT, AGED 20 YEARS, D.NO.334, 1ST FLOOR,
NETAJI ROAD, AYYAPPA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA. (BEING MINOR
REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN CHINTALA
GAYATRI)
...RESPONDENT(S):
4
VS,J
C.R.P.No.2681 of 2023 & Batch
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the
circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be
pleased topleased to allow the revision and set aside the order in I.A.No.1450
of 2023 in O.S.No.214 of 2014, dated 21.09.2023, on the file of the IIIrd
Additional District Judge, Kakinada and consequently allow the petition in
I.A.No.1450 of 2023 in O.S.No.214 of 2014 and grant such other relief as it
deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
IA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of the common order
passed in I.A.N0.1450 of 2023 in O.S.No.214 of 2014, on the file of the IIIrd
Additional District Judge, Kakinada, pending disposal of the C.R.P., failing
,which the petitioner will suffer serious loss and damage.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M BALANAGA SRINIVAS
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. T V JAGGI REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2686/2023
Between:
1. PATTA SATHIBABU, S/O.(LATE) APPALA RAJU AGED 59 YEARS,
BUSINESS, D.NO.15-11-13, SATYA PRASANNA NAGAR, KAKINADA
EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
AND
1. ANKALA SARVE VIJAYA KUMAR, S/O (LATE) PRABHAKARA RAO,
AGED 57 YEARS, EMPLOYEE, JUDICIAL COLONY,
RAJARAJESWARIPETA, OPP.NEW MOSQUE, I TOWN,
VIJAYAWADA.
2. ANKALA ANANTHALAKSHMI, W/O. ANKALA SARVE VIJAYA KUMAR
AGED 51 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, JUDICIAL COLONY,
RAJARAJESWARIPETA, OPP.NEW MOSQUE, I TOWN,
5
VS,J
C.R.P.No.2681 of 2023 & Batch
VIJAYAWADA.
3. KOMMU RAVINDRANADH TAKOOR, S/O.(LATE) SIMHACHALAM,
(DIED) AGED 71 YEARS, D.NO.3-20-4/3A, RAMAMANOHARRAJA
NAGAR, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
4. KOMMU NIRMALA DEVI, D/O.(LATE) SIMHACHALAM, (DIED) AGED
71 YEARS, D.NO.3-20-4/3A, RAMAMANOHARRAJA NAGAR,
KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
5. CHINTALA CHIRANJEEVI, S/O.VENKUNAIDU, AGED 56 YEARS,
D/NO.2-58-3, SANTHINAGAR, KAKINADA (DIED)
6. CHINTALA GAYATRI, W/O.(LATE) CHINTALA CHIRANJEEVI AGED
45 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, D.NO.334, 1ST FLOOR, NETAJI ROAD,
AYYAPPA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA.
7. CHINTALA PARNIKA, D/O.(LATE) CHINTALA CHIRANJEEVI AGED 20
YEARS, STUDENT, AGED 20 YEARS, D.NO.334, 1ST FLOOR,
NETAJI ROAD, AYYAPPA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA. (BEING MINOR
REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN CHINTALA
GAYATRI)
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the
circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be
pleased topleased to allow the revision and set aside the order in I.A.No.1451
of 2023 in O.S.No.214 of 2014, dated 21.09.2023, on the file of the IIIrd
Additional District Judge, Kakinada and consequently allow the petition in
I.A.No.1451 of 2023 in O.S.No.214 of 2014 and grant
IA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of the common order
passed in I.A.NO.1451 of 2023 in O.S.No.214 of 2014, on the file of the IIIrd
Additional District Judge, Kakinada, pending disposal of the C.R.P., failing
which the petitioner will suffer serious loss and damage.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M BALANAGA SRINIVAS
6
VS,J
C.R.P.No.2681 of 2023 & Batch
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. T V JAGGI REDDY
The Court made the following:
7
VS,J
C.R.P.No.2681 of 2023 & Batch
COMMON ORDER:
These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioner/3rd defendant challenging the common order dated 21.09.2023 passed in I.A.Nos.1449, 1450 and 1451 of 2023 in O.S.No.214 of 2014 on the file of Court of the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari district, whereby the trial Court dismissed the said interlocutory applications filed by the petitioner/3rd defendant for reopening the suit for the purpose of sending Exs.A1, A2 and A4 to expert for comparison of signatures of Kommu Simhachalam appearing on the sale deeds with the signature of Kommu Simhachalam appearing on document No.8/2002 i.e. Will, in Book No.3 available in Sub-Registrar‟s Office, Kakinada.
2. The respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs have filed the aforesaid suit against the defendants with the following prayer:
"1) declare that the sale deed 14-2-2012, which was registered as document No.1259 of 2012 stands in the name of 1st defendant for item No.1 of the plaint B schedule property and the sale deed there under obtained by the 2nd defendant dated 28-3-2013, which was registered as document No.3604 of 2013 in sub registrar‟s office Kakinada for item No.1 of the plaint B schedule property are null and void documents as the plaintiffs are the owners of the same and grant consequential mandatory injunction directing the sub registrar Kakinada to cancel the entries made relating the above said two documents in their office records
2) declare that the sale deed dated 6-2-2013, which was registered as document No.1049 of 2013 in the name of 8 VS,J C.R.P.No.2681 of 2023 & Batch the 3rd defendant for Item No.2 of the plaint „B‟ schedule property null and void document as the plaintiffs are the owners of the same and grant consequential mandatory injunction directing the sub registrar Kakinada to cancel the entries made relating the above said document in their office records and award costs and such other reliefs as the Hon‟ble court deems fir and proper in the circumstances of the case."
3. The petitioner/3rd defendant contested the said suit by contending that Kommu Simhachalam, who is the father of respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein/defendant Nos.1 and 2 has executed a will bequeathing the plaint B schedule property to respondent Nos.3 and 4/defendant Nos.1 and 2, who in turn have sold their respective share of the property to the petitioner/3rd defendant. The petitioner further contended that the sale deed dated 28.01.2004 through which the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs are claiming their title said to have been executed in their favour by Kommu Simhachalam, is rank forgery and the signature and thumb impression does not belong to the said Kommu Simhachalam. The plaintiff has admitted in his cross examination that he has no objection for seeking opinion of an handwriting expert with regard to the signatures and thumb impressions of Kommu Simhachalam in Exs.A1, A2 and A4. But, as the plaintiffs have not filed any petition for sending the documents for the opinion of the handwriting expert and as defendant Nos.1 and 2 are no more, the petitioner/3rd defendant filed I.A.Nos.1449, 1450 and 1451 of 2023 in O.S.No.214 of 2014 for re-opening the suit, summoning document No.8 of 2002 (Will) in book No.3 available in Sub-Registrar office, Kakinada and for sending Exs.A1, A2 and A4 for 9 VS,J C.R.P.No.2681 of 2023 & Batch comparison of signatures of Kommu Simhachalam appearing on the documents with the signature on document No.8 of 2002 in book No.3 available in Sub-Registrar Office, Kakinada. The trial Court observed that the petitioner on the one hand has denied the execution of sale deed dated 28.01.2004 by Kommu Simhachalam in favour of the plaintiffs, while on the other hand, in his cross examination, the petitioner had deposed that he is contesting the suit on the ground that the said Simhachalam executed the registered sale deed dated 28.01.2004 after executing the will. Having observed thus, the trial Court, has dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner by way of a common order dated 21.09.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/3rd defendant has filed these civil revision petitions.
4. When these civil revision petitions came up for hearing on 06.11.2023, this Court has passed the following interim order:
"Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the contents in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the proceedings in O.S.No.214 of 2014 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Kakinda shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing."
The said interim order was extended thereafter, from time to time.
5. Heard Mr. M. Balanaga Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. T.V. Jaggireddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the facts of the suit and further submitted that the trial Court, vide 10 VS,J C.R.P.No.2681 of 2023 & Batch the impugned order dated 21.09.2023, has dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the petitioner/3rd defendant, in his cross examination has admitted the execution of sale deed by Kommu Simhachalam in favour of the plaintiffs observing that though in the written statement the plea was taken with respect to the forgery. He contends that though the petitioner, in the cross examination, has not admitted the execution of the sale deed or the signatures of the Kommu Simhachalam on the alleged sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs, the trial Court has drawn inference of admission from the statement. He contended that the respondents/plaintiffs themselves have admitted during the course of cross examination that they have no objection in sending the sale deed dated 28.01.2004 to handwriting expert. He submitted that dismissing the applications filed by the petitioner on the aforesaid sole ground is inadmissible and hence, requested to allow these civil revision petitions, by setting aside the common order dated 21.09.2023.He further relied upon the following judgments of this Court and the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh:
Mudi Reddy Tirupathi Reddy Vs. T. Linga Reddy and another1 Janachaitanya Housing Ltd., Hyderabad Vs. Divya Financiers, Guntur2 Siddavarapu Abishek Paul Vs. Budala Denial3 1 2015(6)ALT512 (S.B.) 2 2008 (4) ALD 339 (DB) 3 2023 (5) ALD 257 (AP) 11 VS,J C.R.P.No.2681 of 2023 & Batch Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad Vs. Ravi Surya Prakash and others4
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 has supported the impugned order passed by the Court below in all aspects and further submitted that the opinion of handwriting expert is not necessary as the petitioner himself has admitted the execution of the sale deed by Kommu Simhachalam in favour of the plaintiffs in his cross-
examination. He relied upon a judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Bagai Construction Vs. Gupta Building Material Store5. Hence, requested to dismiss the present petitions.
8. On a perusal of the entire material available on record, it can be seen that the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs have filed O.S.No.214 of 2014 for cancellation of three sale deeds dated 14.02.2012, 28.03.2013 and 06.02.2013 in favour of the petitioner/3rd defendant executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit. Originally, defendant Nos.1 and 2 acquired the subject property in their favour by way of a registered will deed dated 10.01.2002 executed by their father i.e. Kommu Simhachalam. The said suit was filed by the plaintiffs basing on a registered sale deed dated 28.01.2004 executed by Kommu Simhachalam, in their favour. It can be seen that the petitioner/3rd defendant filed a written statement therein contending that the sale deed dated 28.01.2004 was forged one and also disputed the signatures of Kommu 4 2016 (2) ALD 1 (FB) 5 (2013) 14 SCC 1 12 VS,J C.R.P.No.2681 of 2023 & Batch Simhachalam on the sale deed dated 28.01.2004 which is in favour of the plaintiffs. In such a case, though it is for the plaintiffs to file a petition for seeking opinion of the handwriting expert, the petitioner filed I.A.Nos.1449, 1450 and 1451 of 2023 for reopening the suit for the purpose of sending Exs.A1, A2 and A4 to expert for comparison of signatures of Kommu Simhachalam appearing on the sale deed dated 28.01.2004 with the signature of Kommu Simhachalam appearing on document No.8/2002 (Will) in Book No.3 available in Sub-Registrar‟s Office, Kakinada. However, the trial Court has rejected the applications filed by the petitioner by way of a common order dated 21.09.2023 on the ground that the petitioner in his cross examination admitted the execution of sale deed by Kommu Simhachalam in favour of the plaintiffs though in the written statement he has taken a plea of forgery.
9. For better appreciation of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to refer to the relevant portion of the cross examination of the petitioner, which reads as under:
"...I am contesting the suit that the said Simhachalam executed registered sale deed dated 28.01.2004 after executing Ex.B1 Will and so that the said sale deed is invalid. I was not present and not witnessed for execution of Ex.B1 Will."
10. A perusal of the cross examination of the petitioner goes to show that the petitioner has not admitted the execution of the sale deed or the signatures of the Kommu Simhachalam on the alleged sale deeds in favour of 13 VS,J C.R.P.No.2681 of 2023 & Batch the plaintiffs, but, the trial Court has drawn the inference of admission from the said statement, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not true. It can be understood from what the petitioner has stated that as per the dates mentioned in the sale deed and the Will, the sale deed would be after the date of the Will, but, the same would not in any way amount to admission either of the execution of the sale deed or of the signatures of Kommu Simhachalam on the sale deed dated 28.01.2004 in favour of the plaintiffs. For a statement to constitute an admission, it must be specific and unequivocal. An inference of admission cannot be drawn from vague or ambiguous expressions. As such, this Court feels that the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court is not appropriate.
11. Now, the entire case rests upon the question as to whether the disputed documents have been executed by the said Kommu Simhachalam. As I.A.No.1451 of 2023 was filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, this Court feels it relevant to extract Sections - 45 of the Evidence Act and the same is as under:
"45. Opinions of experts.--When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting 2 [or finger impressions], the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, 3 [or in questions as to identity of handwriting] 2 [or finger impressions] are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts. Illustrations
(a) The question is, whether the death of A was caused by poison. The opinions of experts as to the symptoms 14 VS,J C.R.P.No.2681 of 2023 & Batch produced by the poison by which A is supposed to have died, are relevant.
(b) The question is, whether A, at the time of doing a certain act, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The opinions of experts upon the question whether the symptoms exhibited by A, commonly show unsoundness of mind, and whether such unsoundness of mind usually renders persons incapable of knowing the nature of the acts which they do, or of knowing that what they do is either wrong or contrary to law, are relevant.
(c) The question is, whether a certain document was written 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."
12. Section 45 of the Act, 1872, inter alia' provides that the Court can call for evidence of experts to form an opinion regarding the genuineness of signatures and handwriting which are relied on by one party and disputed by another party. It is also relevant to note that the power to seek expert opinion under Section 45 of the Act, 1872 is discretionary and depends on facts of each case.
13. In Mudi Reddy Tirupathi Reddy Vs. T. Linga Reddy and another (1st supra), a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, while dealing with Sections 45 and 73 held that there is no hard and fast rule controlling the discretion of the Court to send a disputed document or writing 15 VS,J C.R.P.No.2681 of 2023 & Batch for opinion of expert and that it is not proper for the Court to express an opinion, at the stage of deciding whether or not to refer a document to an expert, as to whether the evidence on record is sufficient or not as it might amount to prejudging the suit.
14. Under similar circumstances, a learned Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in Janachaitanya Housing Ltd., Hyderabad Vs. Divya Financiers, Guntur (2nd supra), held as under:
"14....the Court cannot lay down any hard-and-fast rules controlling the discretion of the Court to send the disputed documents/writings for the opinion of the expert or to examine him in support of such opinion. On sending the document to handwriting expert and on receiving report, parties, on showing sufficient cause, may call upon the Court to permit them to examine handwriting expert or any witness in support or rebut the said opinion.
15....XXX....
16. For the reasons aforementioned, we answer the reference thus: "No time could be fixed for filing applications under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the disputed signature or writings to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion and same shall be left open to the discretion of the Court; for exercising such discretion when exigencies so demand, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the each case"."
15. The aforesaid judgment was upheld by a full bench of the High Court of Judicature, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad Vs. Ravi Surya Prakash and others (4th supra).
16. Similarly, in Siddavarapu Abishek Paul Vs. Budala Denial (3rd supra), this Court has held as under:
16
VS,J C.R.P.No.2681 of 2023 & Batch "Whenever a party disputes the signature on a particular document, two remedies are open to him, either to request the Court to compare the signatures or to file an application to send the document to the expert for comparison. When the petitioner opted to file an application to send the document to the handwriting expert, no prejudice will be caused to either party. When he is asserting that the signature is that of the said party, even though there is a gap between the disputed signatures and admitted signatures, a science has been developed to compare such signatures also by taking into consideration the direction of the strokes, the speed of writing, the pattern of writing etc., therefore, it cannot be said that no useful purpose will be served by sending the document to the expert. After comparison, if the similarities of the disputed signature and the admitted signatures are very negligible, then the Court can formulate its opinion with the assistance of the expert‟s report and by comparing the signatures whether the report has to be accepted or not. But, if the opportunity is denied to the defendant and if the matter is carried to the appellate Court, there is every likelihood of commenting that he did not avail the opportunity of filing an application for sending the document for handwriting expert‟s opinion, if he is so sure that the disputed signature does not belong to him. In view of the circumstances, I am of the view that it is essential to send the document to the expert for comparison at the request of the party in the interests of justice, which cannot cause any amount of prejudice to the plaintiffs in the present suit, therefore, the order of the lower Court is liable to be set aside."
17. In Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan6, the Apex Court held that, the Courts while dealing with handwriting or signatures cannot itself act as an Expert. The relevant paragraph is extracted below:
"28. The opinion of a handwriting expert is fallible/liable to error like that of anyother witness, and yet, it 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 6 (2012) 12 SCC 406 17 VS,J C.R.P.No.2681 of 2023 & Batch disputed writing with the admitted writing and then from applying its own observation to prove the said handwritings to be the same or different, as the case may be, but in doing so, the Court cannot itself become an expert in this regard and must refrain from playing the role of an expert, for the simple reason that the opinion of the Court may also not be conclusive. 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 mind the risk involved, as the opinion formed by the Court may not be conclusive and is susceptible to error, especially when the exercise is conducted by one, not conversant with the subject. The Court, therefore, as a matter of prudence and caution should hesitate or be slow to base its findings solely upon the comparison made by it. However, where there is an opinion whether of an expert, or of any witness, the Court may then apply its own observation by comparing the signatures, or handwritings for providing a decisive weight or influence to its decision."
18. It can be understood from the above that the Courts shall normally seek expert opinion when they 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 the signatures after comparison of the admitted and disputed signatures. In cases where even a slightest doubt exists, the Courts shall send the admitted and disputed signatures for expert opinion under Section 45 of the Act, 1872. 18
VS,J C.R.P.No.2681 of 2023 & Batch
19. In the judgment Bagai Construction Vs. Gupta Building Material Store (5th supra), relied on by learned counsel for the respondents, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held as under:
"14. The perusal of the materials placed by the plaintiff which are intended to be marked as bills have already been mentioned by the plaintiff in its statement of account but the original bills have not been placed on record by the plaintiff till the date of filing of such application. It is further seen that during the entire trial, those documents have remained in exclusive possession of the plaintiff but for the reasons known to it, still the plaintiff has not placed these bills on record. In such circumstance, as rightly observed by the trial court at this belated stage and that too after the conclusion of the evidence and final arguments and after reserving the matter for pronouncement of the judgment, we are of the view that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to file such applications to fill the lacunae in its pleadings and evidence led by him....
20. The law laid down in the said judgment is not in dispute, but, this Court is of the opinion that the same is not applicable to the case on hand considering its facts and circumstances.
21. As discussed above, the petitioner/3rddefendant laid foundation by contending in the written statement that the sale deed dated 28.01.2004 through which the plaintiffs claimed their title was forged one. Admittedly, the object and purport of Section 45 of the Evidence Act is to be considered by the trial Court and this Court. When there is specific denial by the petitioner/3rddefendant that the sale deed was forged, it is not safe for the trial Court to come to a conclusion that no purpose would be served in sending the sale deed dated 28.01.2004 to a handwriting expert for opinion. The opinion of a handwriting expert shall not be brushed aside as useless. The said 19 VS,J C.R.P.No.2681 of 2023 & Batch finding is contrary to the object and purport of Section - 45 of the Evidence Act. As such, this Court is of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents/plaintiffs in obtaining expert opinion by sending Exs.A1, A2 and A4.
22. In the result, these revision petitions are allowed, by setting aside the common order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Kakinada in I.A.Nos.1449, 1450 and 1451 of 2023 in O.S.No.214 of 2014. Further, the suit shall be reopened for the limited purpose of sending Exs.A1, A2 and A4 to expert for comparison of signatures of Kommu Simhachalm which appear on the said documents with that of the signatures of Kommu Simhachalam on document No.8/2002 in Book No.3 available in Sub-Registrar‟s Office, Kakinada. The said process shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:31.10.2025 Gss