APHC010679762025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3696/2025 Between: 1. UPPALAPATI LAKSHMAN KUMAR,, S/O.DHANVANTHARI, AGED 44 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO 7-14, VYSYA BAZAR, TANGUTUR VILLAGE AND POST, TANGUTUR MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. UPPALAPATI RAMA DEVI, W/O. LATE DHANVANTHARI, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/O. DOOR NO 7-14, SIVALAYAM STREET, TANGUTUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 2. VALLURI TIRUMALA JOYTHI, W/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 48 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO 7-14, SIVALAYAM STREET,ANGUTUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...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 toPetitioner begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition before this Honble Court aggrieved by the Order, dated 12-11-2025 made in I.A No. 106/2025 in OS No. 137/2017 on the file of 1st Addl. District Judge Ongole, 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 may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S No. 137/2017 2 on the file of the court of 1st Addl. District Judge Ongole,Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh pending disposal of the above revision petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAVAN KUMAR PASUPULETI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3696 OF 2025 ORDER:- The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 12.11.2025 passed in I.A.No.106 of 2025 in O.S.No.137 of 2017 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Ongole. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. As issuance of notices to the respondents is not necessary in this matter, notices to the respondents are hereby dispensed with. Perused the material on record. 3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the Suit and the respondents herein are the defendants in the Suit. For convenience of the Court, the parties referred herein as arrayed in the revision petition. The petitioner and respondents herein are none other than the blood related family members. Petitioner herein is the son of the respondent No.1 and brother of respondent No.2. 4. The petitioner herein/ plaintiff filed Suit praying for specific performance of an agreements of sale dated 15.12.2015 and for delivery of possession by the 1st respondent herein or direct the respondents to refund the amount paid by the petitioner to a tune of Rs.15,00,000 along with interest @ 24% p.a.,. Pending Suit, the respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.609 of 2022 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 praying the trial Court to send the disputed signatures contained in the suit agreement of sale to the 4 expert opinion, wherein, the trial Court allowed the said application with a direction to send the suit agreement of sale to the A.P.Forensic Science Laboratory, Mangalagiri for opinion regarding the disputed signatures in it after comparing with the admitted signatures and the respondent No.1 was directed to file the documents containing contemporary admitted signatures and also directed to deposit expert fee as per rules. Later, the plaintiff/ petitioner herein filed another application i.e., I.A.No.106 of 2025 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and under Section 94(E) and Section 151 of CPC., praying the trial court to send the agreement of sale dated 15.12.2015 executed by the 1st respondent in favour of the petitioner along with contemporaneous signatures on registered documents of the 1st respondent/ 1st defendant relating to the year 2015 to be produced by her along with vakalath and written statement and other signatures and writings for comparison, to the director of Govt. Examiner of questioned documents, directorate of forensic science laboratory, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad for his opinion as 2nd opinion. But the trial Court dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred the present revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no limitation to file a petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He further submits that in the earlier order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.609 of 2022, dated 10.07.2023, the trial Court did not mention that particular document on which the admitted signatures of respondent No.1 was 5 sent for opinion. He further submits that after the orders of trial Court, the respondents submitted admitted signatures of vakalath and written statement and also signatures obtained on specimen sheet in open court as admitted signatures for comparison with the signatures of the agreement of sale deed dated 15.12.2015 and to refer the same for expert opinion by the APFSL and APFSL rendered an opinion by way of report dated 22.05.2024. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the admitted signatures of the executants in relation to vakalath and written statement cannot be considered for the reason, the said signatures might have been varied since after knowing the facts and the respondents filed the vakalath and written statement there may be chance to change/ deviate the narration of the original signature. Therefore to overcome the said lacuna, the report submitted by the APFSL dated 22.05.2024 basing upon the admitted signatures of the vakalath and written statement cannot be taken into record since the very basis for comparison of the admitted signatures with the present agreement of sale are not comparable as per the law. Therefore, the earlier report of the APFSL dated 22.05.2024 is liable to be rejected and to determine the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents, the trial Court should have been ordered I.A.No.106 of 2025 filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for comparison of the admitted signatures of the respondent No.1 and to refer for expert opinion. He further argues that dismissal of the I.A.No.106 of 2025 dated 12.11.2025 is contrary to the well known principle of law and liable to be set aside. 6 7. For better understanding the order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.106 of 2025 is extracted hereunder: ‘After examining the documents, expert submitted his report with opinion to this Court on 27.05.2024. After receiving expert opinion, the matter is posted for trial and petitioner herein took 9 adjournments from time to time without raising any objection for the expert opinion and lastly when the matter is posted with condition of dismissal, he filed his chief affidavit on 29.01.2025 and on the same day, he filed the present application raising contention that without producing cotemporaneous signatures on documents of R.1 relating to the year 2015, this Court pleased to take down the signatures of R.1 in open court and sent the Vakalth, written statement, the registered settlement deed dated 26.05.2017 along with agreement of sale and expert gave opinion against his plea and in fact if R.1 produced her contemporaneous signatures on registered documents relating to the year 2015, he would have succeeded. It appears that he filed this application only to delay the suit proceedings, even though, petitioner in I.A.No.609 of 2022 has complied the directions therein by producing the documents containing her signatures for comparison purpose. So, I find no tenable grounds in this petition and it is therefore held that petitioner is not entitled for the relief prayed in the petition and petition is liable to be dismissed.” 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. 9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is an admitted fact that the 1st respondent herein filed I.A.No.609 of 2022 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 praying the trial Court to send the disputed 7 signatures contained in the agreement of sale deed dated 15.12.2015 and other admitted signatures of the 1st respondent that are on registered settlement deed dated 26.05.2017 and specimen signatures obtained in the open court from the respondent No.1 apart from signatures on the vakalath and written statement whatever examined by the expert and rendered its opinion on 22.05.2024. On bare reading of the reference mentioned at the report of the APFSL 22.05.2024, the documents examined to render opinion were settlement deed dated 26.05.2017, signatures on the affidavit by the respondent No.1 and standard signatures of respondent No.1 were examined apart from the signatures of the vakalath and written statement. It is also an admitted fact that signatures of vakalath and written statement were also forwarded but the other admitted signatures were very much there which are to be considered as contemporaneous signatures. As such, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the signatures of the respondent No.1 on vakalath and written statement cannot be compared with the signatures of the agreement of sale is not valid and unsustainable. The expert report dated 22.05.2024 cannot be found fault with as alleged by the petitioner herein. It is settled law that once the expert opinion was rendered in respect of the document present in hand ie., agreement of sale dated 15.12.2015 and again seeking another report regarding the very same agreement of sale/ same document is nothing but an abuse of process of law by inviting two opinions regarding the very same document is certainly leads to much confusion rather than helping the court to resolve the dispute. As such, there 8 is no bar to file 2nd petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for second opinion in respect of the determination of the execution of the very same document dated 15.12.2015. Accordingly, the trial Court rightly held that the said application is filed only to delay the suit proceedings, even though, petitioner in I.A.No.609 of 2022 has complied the directions therein by producing the documents containing her signatures for comparison purpose. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the order passed by the trial court could not suffer by law nor there is any perversity. The trial Court rightly observed and rejected the claim of the petitioner herein. Hence, this Court is inclined to hold that the present petition is filed only to drag the matter for one reason or the other and the basis for filing this petition is contrary to their facts and law. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J Date:26.12.2025 BSP 9 92 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Civil Revision Petition NO.3696 OF 2025 DATED:26.12.2025 Date:26.12.2025 BSP