APHC010308952025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] THURSDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1425/2025 Between: 1. P. JAYASRI, W/O. P. CHENCHU KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D.NO. 6-15-43, LIG-1, 43, APHB COLONY, K.T. ROAD, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. B C VENKATA REDDYDIED, (DIED) 2. B ADILAKSHMI DEVI, W/O. LATE B. VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D.NO. 6-9-1319A, APHB COLONY, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. B R V SUMANTH, S/O. LATE B. VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO. 6-9-1319A, APHB COLONY, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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 CRP by setting aside order dated 02.05.2025 in I.A. No. 651 of 2023 in O.S. No. 44 of 2020 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Tirupati, Chittoor District and pass 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 2 HBKM,J C.R.P.No.1425 of 2025 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CHAMARTHY LEELA SRINNIVASA VARMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PAWAN KUMAR MALAPATI 2. 3 HBKM,J C.R.P.No.1425 of 2025 The Court made the following Order:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This revision is filed against the order in I.A.No.651 of 2023 in O.S.No.44 of 2020 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tirupati, dated 02.05.2025, dismissing the application to send the pro-note (Ex-A.1), FSL for comparison of the shade of the ink of this scribe signature and in amount column, 12th line of promissory note and also comparison of the defendant signature with the Ex.A.1 signature with admitted signature of Ex.A.3. 3. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit and the petitioner in the above said I.A. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the suit and the respondents in the above said I.A. 4. The plaintiffs initiated action in the above said suit for recovery of Rs.29,69,300/- with interest @ 18%p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization basing upon the suit pro-note dated 04.09.2017. When the suit is of the year, 2020, the defendant entered appearance in the suit proceedings dated 22.01.2021 and she filed the above said I.A. for expert opinion on 03.10.2023. The plaintiffs filed the counter for the said I.A. on 26.02.2024. Ultimately, after hearing the I.A. on merits, the same was dismissed vide order dated 02.05.2025. However, in the meanwhile, the trial went on in the main 4 HBKM,J C.R.P.No.1425 of 2025 suit itself and according to both the counsels appearing for the parties, the arguments were also over and it is for pronouncement of judgment. 5. At this stage, the defendant comes up with this revision, assailing the order of the trial Court in the above said I.A. dated 02.05.2025. Though the defendant in the written statement took the plea that the alleged suit promissory note is a resultant of rank forgery, alleged scribe is not the scribe of the promissory note, the amount column in figures and in words are subsequently altered and added to make it as Rs.18,00,000/- and this defendant seeks to send the same to forensic expert for comparison, the above said I.A. was filed with the prayer to send the suit pro-note (Ex.A.1) to FSL for comparison of shade of ink of this scribe signature and in the amount column 12th line of promissory note and also for comparison of the defendant signature in Ex.A.1 with the admitted signature in Ex.A.3. The trial Court in detail examined the prayer in the said I.A. and considering the relevant citations submitted before the trial Court, dismissed the said I.A. observing that the defendant failed to establish grounds to send Ex.A.1/promissory note to forensic handwriting expert for comparison, analysis and opinion. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to the memo filed subsequently in this revision, to send even the Ex.A.4 document, which is the admitted signature of the defendant for an expert opinion along with Ex.A.1 and A.3 and the disputed suit document to the expert. The petitioner/defendant cannot come up with one after the other in piece meal by 5 HBKM,J C.R.P.No.1425 of 2025 bringing the documents for sending them to the expert opinion for comparison, analysis and opinion. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also submits that in Ex.A.1, vakalat and written statement and Suit Summons, the defendant even put her signatures in English language but in the chief affidavit, she signed in Telugu language and the nature of the prayer in the above said I.A itself shows the intention of the defendant to drag on the proceedings to defeat the suit claim of the plaintiffs. 8. For the above said reasons and as the order of the trial Court is well considered, this Court does not show any indulgence at this stage, as the suit itself is ripen for pronouncement of judgment. 9. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN 14.08.2025 PGT