IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 557 AND 562 OF 2025 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 557 OF 2025 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 to set aside the Order passed in lA No. 174 / 2024 in OS No. 110 / 2022 dated 23.01.2025 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhone, Kurnool District, subsequently to allow the lA No. 174 / 2024 in OS No. 110 / 2022 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhone, Kurnool District. Between: Yelwar Mallikarjuna, S/o. Yelwar Raghuram Goud Aged about 38 years, Occ Business, R/o. H.No 1-4-88-80, Ramalingeswara Layout, Raichur Town, andMandal, Raichur District, Karnataka State. ...Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff AND Valangthod Shekhar Rao, S/o. Late Vaiangathod Lalurao, Aged about 57 years, Occ Business, R/o. H.No 15-30-1, Pathapeta, Dhone Town, and Mandal, Nandyal District. ...Respondent/Respondent/Defendant % lA 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 stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 110 of 2022 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhone, Kurnool District pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. K Rama Koteswara Rao Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. Ayesha Azma S CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 562 OF 2025 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 to set aside the Docket Order passed in lA No. 173 / 2024 in OS No. 110/ 2022 dated 23.01.2025 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhone, Kurnool District, subsequently to allow the lA No. 173 / 2024 in OS No. 110 / 2022 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhone, Kurnool District. Between: Yelwar Mallikarjuna, S/o. Yelwar Raghuram Goud, Aged about 38 years, Occ Business, R/o. H.No 1-4-88-80, Ramalingeswara Layout, Raichur Town, and Mandal, Raichur District, Karnataka State. ...Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff AND % Valangthod Shekhar Rao, S/o. Late Valangathod Lalurao, Aged years. Occ Business, R/o. H.No 15-30-1, Pathapeta, Dhone Town Mandal, Nandyal District. about 57 , and ...Respondent/Respondent/Defendant lA NO: 1 OF 2Q2fi 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 to stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.110 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhone, Kurnool District pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. K Rama Koteswara Rao Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. Ayesha Azma S The Court made the following: %ft APHC010095812025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Tuesday, the Twenty Nineth day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petitions No: 557 and 562 of 2025 Between: Yelwar Mallikarjuna ...Petitioner and Valangthod Shekhar Rao Counsel for the petitioner: ...Respondent 1. K. Rama Koteswara Rao Counsel for the respondent: 1 .Ayesha Azma.S The Court made the following: 2 C.R.P.NOS.557 &562 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.557 of 2025 is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against order dated 23.01.2025 dismissing I.A.No.174 of 2024 in O.S.No.110 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhone, Kurnool District, filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of C.P.C. to reopen the suit and permit the petitioner to file a petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the documents to the expert for opinion. C.R.P.No.562 of 2025 is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against docket order dated 23.01.2025 dismissing I.A.No.173 of 2024 in O.S.No.110 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhone, Kurnool District, filed by the plaintiff under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act and Section 151 of C.P.C. to send the finger prints of respondent to a handwriting expert. The case of the revision petitioners is briefly as follows: The revision petitioner / plaintiff filed suit against the respondent / defendant for specific performance of the agreement of sale and direction to the defendant to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the suit schedule property to an extent of Ac.1.30 cents in Survey no.357/2B of Dhone Village, basing on an agreement of sale dated 24.10.2016 made between the plaintiff and defendant, wherein the defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property for Rs.20,80,000/- (@16,00,000/- per acre). The plaintiff paid Rs.10,00,000/- as advance on 24.10.2016, as per the agreement and Rs.6,00,000/- on 14.06.2017, under an endorsement on the back side of a photostat copy of the agreement of sale in the presence of witnesses. Thereafter, the plaintiff offered the remaining balance 2. 3. 3 C.R.P.NOS.557 & 562 of 2025 amount of sale consideration i.e., Rs.4,80,000/- to the defendant, but, the defendant evaded to execute the registered sale deed by receiving the same and was trying to sell the suit schedule parties. The plaintiff issued legal notices on 10.10.2020 and 19.12.2020 respectively to the defendant. As there defendant, the suit was filed. 4. The plaintiff himself was examined as PW1 and PW2 to PW5 were examined on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant as DW1. The following exhibits were marked on behalf of the plaintiff; EX.A1 : Agreement of sale dated 24.10.2016 (original and Xerox) property to third was no response from the was examined Ex.A2: Endorsement on the back of xerox copy of agreement of sale dated 14.06.2017 (original and xerox) Ex.AS: Office copy of legal notice dated 10.10.2020. Ex.A4. Office copy of second legal notice dated 19.12.2020. Ex.AS: Served postal acknowledgment card dated 22.12.2020. Ex.A6; Original term deposit advice dated 04.01.2021 issued by the Jana Small Finance Bank, Raichur Branch, situated at Raichur Town and District. 5. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.173 and 174 of 2024 in the suit seeking reliefs as noted supra. The respondent contended that as the Ex.AI and Ex.A2 were created documents, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance, but he had not made documents to expert for opinion. In the any efforts to send those cross-examination, the learned % 4 V C.R.P.NOS.557 & 562 of 2025 counsel for the defendant / respondent also put a suggestion whether the plaintiff had any objectipn to send the documents to expert. As such, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.173 of 2024 to send the documents to expert for opinion to reveal the real facts. The respondent / defendant filed a counter denying the contentions of the petitioner that he had not filed the petition at the time of leading his evidence; that the plaintiff filed affidavit in chief- examination on 26.06.2023 and closed his side of evidence on 04.10.2024 after examining as many as 5 witnesses, including himself and thereafter, the respondent was examined; that finally the suit was posted for arguments to 21.11.2024; that the petitioner kept quiet for 17 months during the trial; that the petitioner sought to send the disputed documents to the private lab (Truth Lab) instead of the government lab at Amaravathi; and that the petition was filed only to drag on the matter and prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. The trial Court, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the petitions agreeing with the version of the respondent / defendant and also held that it is not the right stage to entertain the petition. A reasoned order was passed while dismissing I.A.No.174 of 2024, whereas I.A.No.173 of 2024 was dismissed as I.A.No.174 of 2024 had been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, these revision petitions were filed. 7. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the disputed signatures of the defendant on the questioned suit agreement of sale marked as Ex.A.1 and the endorsement thereon marked as Ex.A.2 require examination by an expert since they were denied by the defendant, or else it would be difficult for the petitioner to establish 8. C.R.P.NOS.557 &562 of 2025 genuineness of the disputed signatures which are essential to get the relief claimed in the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that defendant himself, through his counsel, had suggested to the petitioner / PW.1 in the cross examination as to whether there is any objection to send Exs.A.1 and A.2 to an expert for opinion and therefore, PW.1 replied that he had no objection and now there is no merit in opposing the petition. He further submitted that the defendant is contending that the signature on the agreement in Ex.A.1 was fabricated by using technology of scanning the signature from the 24.10.2016 and therefore, it is necessary to seek the opinion of an expert and moreover the signatures of defendant are available on his vakalat, the written statement and suit summons and in his deposition, respondent, supporting the observations of the trial Court, requested to dismiss the revision petitions. As can be seen from the written statement, there is a specific denial of execution of the agreement of sale dated 24.10.2016, which is later marked as Ex.A.1 and also the endorsement dated 14.06.2017, which is marked as Ex.A.2. The further specific plea is that the suit agreement of sale was created by the plaintiff at the instance of scribe and attestors and that the signatures are not that of the defendant. The written statement was filed as on 14.06.2021. Even then, the petitioner did not choose to file petition at the earliest opportunity i.e., after filing of the written statement or after framing of issues or at any stage during the trial, but at the fag end of the matter i.e., at the time of arguments, this petition was filed. Of course, a petition seeking this relief can be 9. the agreement dated 10. On the other hand,* the learned counsel for the 11. 6 C.R.P.NOS.557 &562 of 2025 filed at any stage of the suit. However, it does not mean that inspite of having sufficient opportunity, the petitioner can wait for no reason and seek such relief at the time of his choice at the fag end, delaying the proceedings without any just ground to do so. In thp present case, there is no ground at all for the petitioner to remain silent for such a long time and suddenly come up with petition at the fag end, moreover when the entire evidence has already been led by both parties contemplating to establish their respective case pleaded. Merely because PW.1 was given a suggestion long back, it cannot be taken to support now. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, both the civil revision petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Interim orclers granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- P VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhone, Kurnool District. One CC to Sri. K Rama Koteswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to M/s. Ayesha Azma S., Advocate [OPUC] Three CD Copies 2. 3. 4. PNM sree HIGH COURT DATED;29/04/2025 COMMON ORDER CRP.No.557 of 2025 & CRP. No. 562 OF 2025 DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS