IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY. THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.535 of 2022 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by Docket Order dated 18-11-2021 passed in O.S.No.2 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari District. Between: Karri Kamala, W/o. Bhaskara Reddy, Aged 67 years, Hindu, Female, R/o. D.No.5-91, Velagalavaripalem, Penuantra Mandal, West Godavari District. Presently residing at 86, Fishwick view, Preston, Lancs, United Kingdom, Rep. by her G.P.A. Holder Chirla Surreddy, S/o. Late Surreddy, Hindu, Male, Aged 65 years, R/o. D.No.30-3-11/16, Ashwini Apartments, Assam Gardens, Visakhapatnam. ...Petitioner/Plaintiff AND 1. Karri Hymavathi, W/o. Prabhakara Reddy, Aged 65 years. Housewife Hindu, Female, R/o. D.No.14-173 A, Velagalavaripalem, Penuantra Mandal, West Godavari District. 2. Karri Ajay Kumar Reddy, S/o. Subbi Reddy, Hindu, Male, Aged 26 years, PNT Colony, Plot No. B2, VGM Mansion Apartment, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 3. Velagala Babji Subba Ramanjaneya Reddy @ Babji Reddy, S/o. Late Peda Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Male, Aged 54 years, doing business. R/o. D.No. 5-60, Velagalavaripalem, Penuantra Mandal, West Godavari^ District. 4. ^^gala Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o. (late)Basivi Reddy, Hindu, Male, Aged 53 years, R/o. D.No. 5-116A, Velagalavaripalem, Penuantra Mandal, West Godavari District. ...Respondents/Defendants (Respondents 3 and 4 are not necessary parties) lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.2 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari District, pending disposal of CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A S C Bose Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty The Court made the foIlowing:ORDER APHC010114032022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 535 OF 2022 Between: ...PETITIONER I Karri Kamala AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Karri Hymavathi and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.ASCBOSE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.SA1 GANGADHAR CHAMARTY The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 535 OF 2022 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the Order dated 18.11.2021 in O.S.No. 2 of 2016 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari District. 2. The Petitioner is the plaintiff and the Respondents are defendants in the suit. The suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 15.06.1984. The Respondents filed their Written Statement, disputing the claim and the signature on the suit agreement of sale. 3. In the course of the suit, the Respondents/ Defendants filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No. 319 of 2019 seeking relief to send the suit agreement of sale for comparison of signatures of the 1®’ defendant for expert opinion. The trial court allowed the same vide order dated 13.12.2019. Pursuant to the order of the trial court, the suit agreement of sale i.e Ex.AI and Registered Settlement Deed 13.03.2013 for comparison were sent for expert opinion. 4. The Central Forensic Science Laboratory returned the said documents on the ground that the forwarding letter issued by the Court is not clear, as to which of the document is being disputed, vide letter dated 12.02.2020. As such, a request is made to the Court to encircle each of the disputed signatures in red in colour and mark as Q1, Q2 etc., and each of the i \ admittedly genuine signatures encircled in blue colour and mark as A1, A2 ' etc., for the purpose of their identification. 5. Thereafter, the trial court vide order dated 18.11.2021 has resent the documents to the expert, after complying with the request as mentioned in the letter dated 12.02.2020. Questioning the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the letter dated 12.02.2020 also mentioned the contemporaneous documents were sought by the expert and the trial court has committed an error in resending the same documents without contemporaneous document as sought for expert opinion. This Court is of the opinion that the letter dated 18.11.2021 does not categorically say, it is not possible to compare the suit agreement of sale with registered Settlement Deed i.e Ex.BI, but had only asked for additional documents to enable the expert to give better opinion. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner cannot be sustained. 8. In addition, the primary reason for issuance of the letter dated 12.02.2020 is only to encircle the disputed and admitted signatures in red and blue colours to give expert opinion. Therefore, this Court has not find any merit in the C.R.P and same is liable to be dismissed. 4 9. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition is, therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. 10. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- A. VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// /r SECTION OFFICER To 1. The IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari District. 2. One CC to Sri A S C Bose, Advocate [OPUC 3. One CC to Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 5. Three CD Copies TK ns HIGH COURT TK DATED:08/01/2025 ORDER CRP.No.535 of 2022 and/^3^ I 2 5 MAR 2025 Current Seciion . o>. DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION