THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1634 & 1635 of 2025 ORDER:- Since the both Civil Revision Petitions arouse from same Suit i.e., O.S.No.52 of 2017, both the C.R.Ps. can be decided by way of a common order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. Civil Revision Petition Nos.1634 of 2025 is filed against the order dated 27.03.2025 in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.52 of 2017 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur under Section 151 of CPC seeking to reopen the petitioners side evidence. 4. Civil Revision Petition No. 1635 of 2025 is filed against the order dated 27.03.2025 in I.A.No. 4 of 2024 respectively in O.S.No.52 of 2017 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur under Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 requesting to send the agreement of sale for expert opinion. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners/ defendants themselves pleaded in the written statement regarding genuinity of the documents. Admittedly, the trial was completed and the matters were posted for arguments. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners even though they urged in the written statement that the subject documents are not genuine, the petitioners/ defendants filed the applications seeking to reopen the evidence and to send the documents to the expert opinion/ hand writing expert at the stage of arguments. He further submits that the Court below without considering the contention of the petitioners dismissed the said I.As. filed for re- 2 opening of evidence as well as sending the subject document for expert opinion on the ground that the same were filed at belated stage i.e., at the stage of arguments which is contrary to law and the present impugned orders dated 27.03.2025 are liable to be set aside. 6. On perusal of the material placed on record along with these Revision Petitions, the Court below categorically held in I.A.Nos. 3 and 4 of 2024 as follows: “I.A.No.3 of 2024: On perusal of the evidence of DWs.1 to 3, they admitted the signatures of DW.1 are different and moreover, at the time of arguments, this petition is filed to reopen the suit for the purpose of sending the agreement of sale to the handwriting expert. This Court is of the opinion that it is an after thought one. The amendments to Civil Procedure Code were made in order to speed up the process of disposal of the cases and if this type of applications are allowed, it would go against the scheme of Civil Procedure Code. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition is filed only to drag on the litigation for some more years together and nothing but to fill up the latches. There is no sufficient reason appears on the record to allow the petition. Accordingly, the point is answered as against the petitioners. I.A.No.4 of 2024: On perusal of the evidence of DWs.1 to 3, they admitted the signatures of DW.1 are different and moreover, at the time of arguments, this petition is filed to send the agreement of sale to the handwriting expert. This Court is of the opinion that it is an after thought one. The amendments to Civil Procedure Code were made in order to speed up the process of disposal of the cases and if this type of applications are 3 allowed, it would go against the scheme of Civil Procedure Code. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition is filed only to drag on the litigation for some more years together and nothing but to fill up the latches. Moreover, it is found noticed that the petitioners did not filed contemporaneous documents which containing the signatures of the defendants along with the petition. There is no sufficient reason appears on the record to allow the petition. Accordingly, the point is answered as against the petitioners.” 7. In view of the admission on part of the petitioners/ defendant Nos. 1 to 3, considering the plea of the petitioners/ defendants in these petitions are not required, more particularly, at the stage of the arguments. It is observed that the present petitions are filed only to drag the matters. It is a settled law that once the Court below has exercised its discretion, it can decide the issue basing upon the admitted evidence put forth before the Court below. As such, the Court below cannot be directed to entertain the applications i.e., I.A.Nos. 3 and 4 of 2024. 8. In the case on hand, the Court below categorically stated that in view of the admitted evidence of DWs. 1 to 3, the Court below can decide the issue. So there is no necessity to reopen the defendants evidence and to send the documents for any expert opinion to decide the issue before the Court. It is further observed that certainly filing of those applications at the time of arguments cannot be entertained as the same are filed only to drag the matters for further time without finalising the proceedings before the Court below. 9. In view of the reasons stated above, even on merits, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders of the Court below. 4 10. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 16.07.2025 BSP 5 175 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1634, 1635 OF 2025 16.07.2025 BSP