::1:: Reserved on : 15.10.2025 Pronounced on : 20.11.2025 Uploaded on : 10.12.2025 APHC010496392025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 2650, 2655 & 2656 of 2025 C.R.P.No.2650 of 2025 Between: 1. SHAIK SIDDAKA BEGUM, , W/O. SHAIK MOHAMMAD YOSUF @ KARIMULLAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.18/72- A, SATHUCHENGANNA STREET, KADAPA CITY. 2. SHAIK SHAMSHEER BASHA,, S/O.SHAIK ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O.D.NO. 14/516-3-2, NAKASH STREET, KADAPA CITY, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) ::2:: AND 1. NELTURU PEERAIAH, S/o. Dastagiri, Aged about 40 years, R/o.D.No.2/34, B.C. Colony, Chinthalacheruvu, Badvel Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. ...RESPONDENT C.R.P.No.2655 of 2025 Between: 1. SHAIK SIDDAKA BEGUM,, W/O. SHAIK MOHAMMAD YOSUF @ KARIMULLAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.18/72-A, SATHUCHENGANNA STREET, KADAPA CITY. 2. SHAIK SHAMSHEER BASHA,, S/O.SHAIK ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.14/516-3-2, I NAKASH STREET, KADAPA CITY, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. NELTURU PEERAIAH, S/o. Dastagiri, Aged about 40 years, R/o.D.No.2/34, B.C. Colony Chinthalacheruvu, Badvel Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. ...RESPONDENT C.R.P.No.2656 of 2025 Between: 1. SHAIK SIDDAKA BEGUM, W/O. SHAIK MOHAMMAD YOSUF @ KARIMULLAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.18/72-A, SATHUCHENGANNA STREET, KADAPA CITY. 2. SHAIK SHAMSHEER BASHA,, S/O.SHAIK ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.14/516-3-2, NAKASH STREET, ::3:: KADAPA CITY, Y.S.R, KADAPA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. NELTURU PEERAIAH, S/o. Dastagiri, Aged about 40 years, R/o.D.No.2/34, B.C. Colony, Chinthalacheruvu, Badvel Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. ...RESPONDENT 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 tomay be urged at the time of hearing, the petitioner herein pray that this Honble Court may be pleased to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the Common Order, dated 21.07.2025 made in I.A.No.476 of 2024 in O.S.No.288 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kadapa, Y.S.R Kadapa District and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. ::4:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA C.R.P.Nos.2650, 2655 of 2656 of 2025 Since the petitioners and respondent are one and the same in the present three Civil Revision Petitions and arisen out of a suit O.S.No.288 of 2018 and also issues involved in these revision petitions are all identical, therefore this Court is inclined to pass a common order. Petitioners herein are plaintiffs and respondent herein is defendant in the suit. For convenience of the Court the parties referred at suit would be referred in this petition. COMMON ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs against the common order dated 21.07.2025 in I.A.Nos.476, 477 and 478 of 2024 in O.S.No.288 of 2018 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kadapa dismissing the applications viz., I.A.No.476 of 2024 is filed under Section 151 of C.P.C with a prayer to reopen the evidence on behalf of petitioners/plaintiffs; I.A.No.477 of 2024 is filed under Order XVI Rule 6 r/w 151 of CPC with a prayer to ::5:: summon the Joint Sub-Registrar (Urban), Kadapa for cause production of petition schedule documents and I.A.No.478 of 2024 is filed under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act with a prayer to send the said documents for comparison to the A.P.F.S.L to get expert opinion, in the interest of justice. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they filed suit O.S.No.288/2018 in the year 2018 seeking declaration of their title over the suit schedule property along with other reliefs of demolition of illegal constructions made at suit schedule property by the respondent through process of Court and also consequential reliefs of recovery of possession over the suit schedule property basing on the Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. While so, written statement was filed. It is the contention of respondent/defendant that the rights claimed by the plaintiff herein under Ex.A1, as her vendor had acquired the said property under Ex.A.2 is not tenable and the property was never sold under Ex.A.2 to her vendee/plaintiff and henceforth the respondent has no manner of right and title over the same. The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the plaintiff is with the burden of proof to prove the Ex.A2 as valid document, unless these petitions are allowed, the validity of the document is not ::6:: possible, as such Court below committed illegality in dismissing these petitions. He further argued that it is settled legal position, when there is a dispute regarding a document by one party to the suit, the Court cannot act as an expert to take ordinal comparison without there being expert opinion and further there is no time limit for the petitions filed under Order XVI Rule 6 and petition under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 3. As can be seen from the impugned common order, the trial Court has rightly observed that after due commencement of trial and after adducing evidence by the petitioners as well as the respondent, the matter was posted for arguments way back in the year 2024. While so, the petitioner has come up with the petition vide I.A.No.336 of 2024, to summon the husband of the vendor of the said document of Ex.A1 in order to arrive for the just decision of the case, after considering the relief and after hearing both the counsel, the said application was allowed by reopening the evidence on behalf of the petitioner and subsequently PW.2 was also present and he was examined in the open Court. Thereby, the petitioner is kept silent in further due course of examination and subsequently after completion of his evidence, the matter ::7:: was again posted for arguments. As a surprise the petitioner again has come up with these petitions i.e., I.A.Nos.476, 477 & 478 of 2024 in order to reopen the trial and also to send the said documents for F.S.L and to cause production of attestation of husband of the vendor in Ex.A2 and attestation made at Doc.No.308 of 1990 as stated in the petition from the District Registrar of Kadapa. It is further observed by the trial Court that the petitioner herein already filed I.A.No.336 of 2024 under Order XVI Rule 6 of CPC which was allowed but the petitioner/plaintiff failed to produce any scrap of the said documents which is sought for production of records and furthermore no attempt has been made by the petitioners to get the certified copies of the same from the Registrar office or any other admissible form of document from the Registrar office to file the same before the Court for kind perusal and consideration. Further, Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are marked on record are the certified copies of the registered title deeds and the petitioner/plaintiff is silent with respect to non-production of the original of Ex.A2 when she herself is subsequent beneficiary under Ex.A1. It is also further observed by the Trial Court that filing these applications and cause production of the documents said to have been executed in ::8:: the year 1971 and 1990 after a long paucity of time sought to be compared with the questioned documents i.e., Ex.A1 said to have been executed in the year 1971 would not serve any purpose and henceforth the Petitioner No.2 who already got examined PW.2 before the Trial Court and kept silent at the time of his letting evidence. But coming up with the new pleas at this stage at the fag end of the suit proceeding without any cogent and proper reasons is nothing but filing frivolous petitions which cannot be allowed for simple reason of cause production of such documents and also to send the same to F.S.L which takes out the time by increasing life time of litigation. (a) In Hussain Bin Awaz v. Mittapally Venkataramulu & Others1, Hon’ble Apex Court observed thus: “In a suit for declaration and injunction, it is for the plaintiff to prove his case. Section 45 read with Section 73 of the Act, can only be invoked for an admitted document for the purpose of comparison of signatures or handwriting.” (b) In Shamim Ahamed and another vs. Mr. Mohd Haneef Quareshi [W.P.No.13508 of 2020 (GM-CPC), dated 22.11.2023] the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru held thus: “5. The suit of the respondent/plaintiff is for declaration that he is the owner of suit schedule property by cancelling the 1 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1083 ::9:: registered sale deed dated 24.05.2007. The burden is on the respondent/plaintiff to prove that the sale deed 24.05.2007 is the result of conspiracy, and is a created and forged sale deed. When the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the issue with regard to prayer for declaration and cancellation it would not be for the petitioners/defendants to call Sub-Registrar and documents stated in I.A. filed under Order XVI Rule 6 of CPC. 6. The trial Court is justified in rejecting the I.A. filed under Section 151 of CPC to reopen the stage for further evidence. A perusal of I.A filed under Section 151 of CPC would indicate that reopening of the stage is sought only to examine the Sub- Registrar. This Court is of the opinion that the Sub-Registrar would not be necessary to be examined in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioners/defendants have not sought reopening of the stage for further examination and have not placed on record the list of witnesses.” (c) In Dandi Kiran Kumar vs. Balaji Sankar Singh [C.R.P.Nos.1215 and 1342 of 2022, dated 06.01.2023] this Hon’ble Court passed an order which reads as under: “5. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the Court below rightly held that filing of the present applications filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 at the stage of arguments is only to drag on the matter. He further submits that as rightly held by the Court below, it has ample power under Section 75 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to compare the signatures and thumb impressions out of the record. Therefore, in the event of difficulty in comparison, then only the reference to expert opinion would arise. He contends that there is every possibility of change of signatures if the timeline is very high. Even in the present case, the date of execution of the promissory note is 08.08.2016 and the petitioner/defendant sought for comparison of signatures in the year 2022.” (d) In Gajavalli Bhaskara Rao vs. Pakanati Srinivasa Reddy (CRP Nos.377 & 379 of 2023, dated 20.03.2023) this Hon’ble Court observed as under: ::10:: “xxxxx xxxxx, the petitioner did not file any piece of paper to show that the account is maintained in his name and failed to aver and mention cheque numbers and dates of cheques in the application. She further contended that, no cheque numbers need to be given or mentioned in the affidavit as once the bank official is summoned, he would come with the cheques that were given during the period and those cheques can be sent to the expert for comparison along with the signatures on the promissory notes. She further contended that, the court below has failed to take note of this aspect and dismissed the said applications erroneously. As such, the present revisions are filed and prayed to allow the revision petitions. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent contended that, in the affidavit filed in support of their respective applications the petitioner did not plead or aver properly stating that the cheques that are sought to be summoned are of contemporary period which are required to send to the expert along with the suit promissory notes. He further submitted that, the petitioner did not file any other documents available with him except the cheques that are to be summoned through the Bank Manager and the Court below has rightly dismissed the said applications. As such, prayed to dismiss the revisions. 6. Perused the record. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.158/2019 for recovery of money basing on promissory notes. In the said suit, the petitioner filed one application vide I.A.No.50/2021 under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908 and filed another application vide I.A.No.51/2021 under Order 16 Rule 6 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the said application states that the petitioner has not properly or categorically stated as to which cheque it has to be summoned from the bank. Further, the petitioner did not state that he has no other admitted signatures of the contemporary period available with him. In the absence of these grounds, the Court below has rightly dismissed the applications. This Court does not find any irregularity or impropriety and as there are no valid and justifiable grounds raised or urged in the present revision warranting the interference of this Hon’ble court, these revisions are liable to be dismissed.” 4. The Trial Court has rightly held that the petitioners who are well aware of the all the facts and circumstances filing these petitions in a piece meal one after other for dragging the suit ::11:: which was filed in the year way back 2018, and also riped for disposal who had ample time to place them within time but failed to do so. 5. The trial Court has discretion after completion of trial to arrive just decision, since ample evidence was placed to determine the dispute, for collecting expert opinion as contended by the plaintiff not at all required. The Court below rightly observed that petitioner was provided an opportunity for production of documents but failed to do so, therefore he cannot be permitted to seek for same relief again and again. It is true that there is no time limit for the petition under Order XVI Rule 6 but cannot be permitted again and again without there being any foundation of pleadings and sufficient purpose or object. In the case on hand, the documents sought for comparison are not relating to contemporary period, which is against the settled law, the same cannot be referred for expert opinion. 6. Therefore, the reasons shown by the trial Court to dismiss the applications i.e., I.A.Nos.476, 477 and 478 of 2024 in O.S.No.288 of 2018 to reopen the evidence, to summon the Joint Sub-Registrar (Urban), Kdapa for cause production of petition ::12:: schedule documents and to send the said document for comparison to the A.P.F.S.L to get expert opinion do not suffer any illegality or irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference. 7. Accordingly, the C.R.P.Nos.2650, 2655 and 2656 of 2025 are dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Dt:20.11.2025 krk ::13:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA C.R.P.Nos.2650, 2655 of 2656 of 2025 Dt:20.11.2025 krk 374