APHC010643112023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3364/2023 Between: Soodulakunta Raghuveera Chowdary ...PETITIONER AND Sanjeeva Reddygari Parvathamma ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NARASIMHULU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. K NARSI REDDY The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3364 of 2023 ORDER: 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 25.04.2023 in I.A.No.62 of 2023 in O.S.No.54 of 2018 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Hindupur, Anantapur District. 2. The Petitioner is the Plaintiff. The suit was filed for specific performance of Agreement of Sale said to have been executed by the Defendant/Respondent in favour of the Plaintiff/Petitioner on 22.09.2017 for consideration of Rs.52,15,000/-. As per the plaint, the Plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and balance consideration was to be paid within three months there from. It was also pleaded that subsequently the Plaintiff received Rs.8,00,000/- on 14.12.2017 but was not inclined to retract from her agreement and was not cooperating with the Plaintiff to execute the Sale Deed. In that state of affairs, the suit was filed. 3. The Defendant filed her written statement stating that she is illiterate and Plaintiff was a Reporter for Eenadu Newspaper. It was further pleaded that the Defendant had conditionally accepted and entered into Agreement of Sale on 22.09.2017 for Rs.52,15,000/- and took Rs.4,00,000/- as advance on that day. As the balance amount was not paid within three months as agreed, the agreement of sale was cancelled and advance was forfeited. The Defendant denied receipt of Rs.8,00,000/- on 14.12.2017 and that she did not put her LTI on that day and that the same is forged and fabricated. 4. In the course of trial, the Respondent filed I.A.No.62 of 2023 to send the Vakalathnama, Written Statement and her Chief Affidavit along with Exs.A.1 and A.2 to the Thumb Impression Expert for comparison so as to substantiate her plea taken in the written statement. The trial Court 3 taking into consideration the submission made by the counsel for the Defendant allowed the said application. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 5. Heard Sri Narsimhulu Parise, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri K. Narsi Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Exs.A.1 and A.2 pertain to the year 2017 and the present application was filed in the year 2023 and that contemporaneous thumb impressions should be produced by the Respondent and only then the document can be sent for comparison to the Thumb Impression Expert. The counsel for Respondent argued in support of the order of trial Court. 7. This Court is of the opinion that the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner does not have any merit since the thumb marks of an individual do not alter by passage of time. 8. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the contention of the counsel for the Petitioner. 9. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 03.02.2025 IS 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3364 of 2023 Date: 03.02.2025 IS