Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Bellamkonda Srinivasa Rao vs Ambati Rama Krishna on 11 July, 2025
APHC010272852025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1339 OF 2025
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Civil Revision
Petition against the orders in lA. No. 835/2024 in O.S. No. 88/2021 on the file
of Junior Civil Judge, Parchur, dated 07-04-2025.
Between:
Bellamkonda Srinivasa Rao, S/o Late Gurunadham, aged 56 years, Occ
Cultivation cum Kirana business, R/o Duddukuru Village, Inkollu Mandal
Prakasam District
...Petitioner/Defendant
AND
Ambati Rama Krishna, S/o Singaiah, aged 48 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o
Duddukuru Village, Inkollu Mandal, Prakasam District
...Respondent/Plaintiff
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 88/2021 on the file
of Junior Civil Judge, Parchur, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision
Petition or else the petitioner will suffer grave and irreparable loss.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D KRISHNA MURTHY
Counsel for the Respondent: -
The Court made the following order:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1339 OF 2025
ORDER:
The revision petitioner-defendant, aggrieved by the order dated 07.04.2025 in I.A.No.835 of 2024 in O.S.No.88 of 2021 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Parchur, filed the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. The respondent herein who is plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- against the petitioner herein who is defendant in the suit basing on the promissory note dated 14.07.2019. Petitioner has not disputed the execution of promissory note. The petitioner herein filed an application vide I.A.No.835 of 2024 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 151 C.P.C., praying the Court to send the suit document i.e., promissory note, which is marked as Ex.AI, to the Forensic Laboratory for examination of the material alteration from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/- by altering the number '4' in the amount column, for Ex debito justitiae.
3. The respondent-plaintiff filed counter for the aforesaid I.A. and it is stated that the petitioner herein-defendant admitted about the execution of the promissory note and the same is confirmed by his evidence and the petitioner-defendant filed vexatious petition to drag the suit proceedings and the suit is basing on the negotiable instrument and the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act clearly state that in cases of ambiguity or discrepancies between numbers and words, the written words take precedence. The amount specified in Exhibit A1 is ) 2 unambiguous, and the corresponding worded amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- is also distinctly stated and the present application is filed only for prolixity of litigation and it is settled principle that technical opinion is not accurate sign and it will not overcome the positive evidence adduced by the parties and further stated that the trial Court is competent to scrutiny Ex.A1 as per the procedure of law. Hence, prayed to dismiss the application.
4. The learned trial Court Judge, after considering the oral submissions made by both the parties and after perusal of Ex.A1 suit promissory note, held that the Court has got ample power to scrutiny the documents which are produced by the parties as well as the documents which are available on record, as contemplated under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act and the Court can scrutiny the signatures as well as material alterations which are visible to the naked eye and sending the suit promissory note for expert opinion only basing on the material alteration would consume excess time and would cause further delay in disposal of the case and the trial court below natural corollary felt that it is a futile exercise to send suit promissory note to expert opinion. Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the petition filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.
5. Assailing the said order dated 07.04.2024 in I.A.No.835 of 2025 in O.S.No.88 of 2021, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed on the ground that the trial Court is not competent to compare signatures and the said exercise should be used sparingly and with utmost caution the trial court ought not to have been undertaken such exercise hence.
3prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition and to direct the trial Court to send the suit promissory note for expert opinion.
6. Section 18 Negotiable Instrument act clearly envisages that the amount mentioned in the words would be taken as correct figure, when there is a difference between the amount mentioned in the figure and the amount mentioned in the words. The learned trial judge has explicitly outlined in the impugned order that the amount four lakhs was categorically noted in words in the suit document.
7. This Court has culled out some observations from the Hon'ble Apex Court judgement delivered under section 73 of Indian Evidence Act in Thiruvengada Pillai \/s. Navaneethammal and another reported in (2008)4 see 530, which are extracted as follows:
"While there is no doubt that Court can compare the disputed handwriting/signature/finger impression with the admitted handwriting/signature/finger impression, such comparison by Court without the assistance of any expert, has always been considered to be hazardous and risky.
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 comparison, only after an analysis of the characteristics of the admitted finger impression and after verifying whether the same characteristics are found in the disputed finger impression. --4
Where the Court finds that the disputed finger impression and admitted thumb impression are clear where the Court is in a position to identify the characteristics of finger prints, 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.
Further even in cases where the Court is constrained to take up such comparison, it should make a thorough study, if necessary with the assistance of counsel, to ascertain the characteristics, similarities and dissimilarities. Necessarily, the judgment should contain the reasons for any conclusion based on comparison of the thumb impression, if it chooses to record a finding thereon. The Court should avoid reaching conclusions based on a mere casual or routine glance, or perusal and it is not advisable that a Judge should take upon himself the task of comparing the admitted writing with the disputed 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."
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the excursus of the aforementioned judgment, has held that there is no bar on a court comparing signatures. The only embargo is that the court must record a finding on such comparison, even in the absence of expert opinion.
) *== 5 However, when the disputed thumb impression is smudgy, vague, or very light, the court should not hazard a guess based on a casual perusal.
I 9. On the conglomeration of the above said facts and law, this Court { is of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application, observing that there is no bar to the Court to compare the disputed figure and as rightly contested by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff and under Section 18 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, whenever there is a difference between the amounts mentioned in the figures and the amount mentioned in the words, then the amount mentioned in the words would be taken as correct, the relevant section 18 Nl Act is extracted hereunder;
"If the amount undertaken or ordered to be paid is stated differently in figures and in words, the amount stated in words shall be the amount undertaken or ordered to be paid."
10. Therefore, this Court found no grounds or no reasons to interdict the orders passed by the learned trial Court Judge. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) payable to the District Legal Services Authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which, the trial Court is at liberty to take steps to send the petitioner to civil prison for recovery of the said amount.
6As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.
Sd/-B PRASADA RAO
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
5^ ^
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Parchur, Prakasam District
2. The Member Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Parchur, Prakasam District
3. One CC to Sri. D Krishna Murthy, Advocate [OPUC]
4. Two CD Copies MKP sree \ [ 1 HIGH COURT DATED:11/07/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 1339 OF 2025 DISMISSING THE CRP WITH COSTS