APHC010202002024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1148, 950, 956 & 1049 of 2024 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1148/2024 Between: 1. NELAPUDI VIMALA SAROJINI, W/O. VENKATAREDDY PRASAD RAO, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 1-145, AMBEDKAR STREET, GOWRIPATNAM, DEVARAPALLI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. MOYYA DEVA SUNDARA MANI, W/O. SURYA PRAKASH RAO, AGED 56 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. DOOR NO. 40-53-18, SANJEEVAYYA COLONY, TADICHETLAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. MADDA MARTIN LUTHER KING, ( DIED ) 2. MADDA KUMARI, W/O. LATE MARTIN LUTHER KING, PROPERTIES, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. 19-11-12, 26TH WARD, BADUGUVARI STREET, CHINAPETA, BHIMAVRAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. MADDA SANTHI PADMA LEELA, D/O. LATE MARTIN LUTHER KING, PROPERTIES, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O. 19-11-12, 26TH WARD, BADUGUVARI STREET, CHINAPETA, BHIMAVRAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. MADDA VIJAYA DANIEL, S/O. LATE MARTIN LUTHER KING, PROPERTIES, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O. 19-11-12, 26TH WARD, BADUGUVARI STREET, CHINAPETA, BHIMAVRAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 topleased to call for records relating to order and decree dated 18.3.2024 in lA No. 404/2024 in OS No. 88/2003 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Bhimavram and examine its legality, propriety and correctness of the same and consequently set aside the same by allowing the revision in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. YALLABANDI RAMATIRTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ANIL KUMAR DASARI 2. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 950/2024 Between: 1. NELAPUDI VIMALA SAROJINI, W/O. VENKATAREDDY PRASAD RAO, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 1-145, AMBEDKAR STREET, GOWRIPATNAM, DEVARAPALLI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. MOYYA DEVA SUNDARA MANI, W/O. SURYA PRAKASH RAO, AGED 56 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. DOOR NO. 40-53-18, SANJEEVAYYA COLONY, TADICHETLAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. MADDA MARTIN LUTHER KING, ( DIED ) 2. MADDA KUMARI, W/O. LATE MARTIN LUTHER KING, PROPERTIES, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. 19-11-12, 26TH WARD, BADUGUVARI STREET, CHINAPETA, BHIMAVRAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. MADDA SANTHI PADMA LEELA, D/O. LATE MARTIN LUTHER KING, PROPERTIES, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O. 19-11-12, 26TH WARD, BADUGUVARI STREET, CHINAPETA, BHIMAVRAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. MADDA VIJAYA DANIEL, S/O. LATE MARTIN LUTHER KING, PROPERTIES, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O. 19-11-12, 26TH WARD, BADUGUVARI STREET, CHINAPETA, BHIMAVRAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3 ...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 tomay be pleased to call for records relating to order and decree dated 18.3.2024 in lA No. 403/2024 in OS No. 88/2003 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Bhimavram and examine its legality, propriety and correctness of the same and consequently set aside the same by allowing the revision in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 stay all further proceedings in OS No. 88/2003 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Bhimavram, pending disposal of the above revision and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. YALLABANDI RAMATIRTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ANIL KUMAR DASARI 2. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 956/2024 Between: 1. NELAPUDI VIMALA SAROJINI, W/O. VENKATAREDDY PRASAD RAO, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 1-145, AMBEDKAR STREET, GOWRIPATNAM, DEVARAPALLI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. MOYYA DEVA SUNDARA MANI, W/O. SURYA PRAKASH RAO, AGED 56 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. DOOR NO. 40-53-18, SANJEEVAYYA COLONY, TADICHETLAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. MADDA MARTIN LUTHER KINGDIED, ( DIED ) 2. MADDA KUMARI, W/O. LATE MARTIN LUTHER KING, PROPERTIES, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. 19-11-12, 26TH WARD, BADUGUVARI 4 STREET, CHINAPETA, BHIMAVRAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. MADDA SANTHI PADMA LEELA, D/O. LATE MARTIN LUTHER KING, PROPERTIES, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O. 19-11-12, 26TH WARD, BADUGUVARI STREET, CHINAPETA, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. MADDA VIJAYA DANIEL, S/O. LATE MARTIN LUTHER KING, PROPERTIES, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O. 19-11-12, 26TH WARD, BADUGUVARI STREET, CHINAPETA, BHIMAVRAM, WEST GODAVARI 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 topleased to call for records relating to order and decree dated 18.3.2024 in lA No. 406/2024 in OS No. 88/2003 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Bhimavaram and examine its legality, propriety and correctness of the same and consequently set aside the same by allowing the revision in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. YALLABANDI RAMATIRTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ANIL KUMAR DASARI 2. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1049/2024 Between: 1. NELAPUDI VIMALA SAROJINI, W/O. VENKATAREDDY PRASAD RAO, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 1-145, AMBEDKAR STREET, GOWRIPATNAM, DEVARAPALLI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. MOYYA DEVA SUNDARA MANI, W/O. SURYA PRAKASH RAO, AGED 56 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. DOOR NO. 40-53-18, SANJEEVAYYA COLONY, TADICHETLAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. MADDA MARTIN LUTHER KING, ( DIED ) 5 2. MADDA KUMARI, W/O. LATE MARTIN LUTHER KING, PROPERTIES, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. 19-11-12, 2TH WARD, BADUGUVARI STREET, CHINAPETA, BHIMAVRAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. MADDA SANTHI PADMA LEELA, D/O. LATE MARTIN LUTHER KING, PROPERTIES, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O. 19-11-12, 26TH WARD, BADUGUVARI STREET, CHINAPETA, BHIMAVRAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. MADDA VIJAYA DANIEL, , S/O. LATE MARTIN LUTHER KING, PROPERTIES, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O. 19-11-12, 26TH WARD, BADUGUVARI STREET, CHINAPETA, BHIMAVRAM, WEST GODAVARI 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 topleased to call for records relating to order and decree dated 18.3.2024 in lA No. 405/2024 in OS No. 88/2003 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Bhimavram and examine its legality, propriety and correctness of the same and consequently set aside the same by allowing the revision in the interest of justice and to pas Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. YALLABANDI RAMATIRTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ANIL KUMAR DASARI 2. The Court made the following: 6 COMMON ORDER: Challenging the orders passed by the Court below dated 18.03.2024 in I.A.Nos.403, 404, 405 & 406 of 2024 in O.S.No.88 of 2003 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Bhimavaram, the present Civil Revision Petitions are preferred. 2. The revision petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and respondents herein are the defendant Nos.1 to 4 in O.S.No.88 of 2003. 3. The brief facts are that the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.88 of 2003, seeking partition and separate possession of the suit scheduled property. Thereafter, the respondents herein filed their written statements. After completion of evidence and when the suit is coming up for arguments, the plaintiffs filed the above four (04) Interlocutory Applications. I.A.No.403 of 2024 was filed under Section 151 of C.P.C seeking to reopen the plaintiffs’ side evidence to summon the 1st attestor of the will and to summon Additional Director of Agriculture, Narasapur and Village Extension Officer, Visakoderu. I.A.No.404 of 2024 was filed under Order 16 Rule 1 and 6 and Section 151 of C.P.C seeking to issue summons to 1st attestor of alleged will dated 25.01.2003. I.A.No.405 of 2024 was filed under Order 16 Rule 1 and 6 and Section 151 of C.P.C seeking to issue summons to Additional Director of Agriculture to produce the service register of Madda Denial and Village Extension Officer, Visakoderu. I.A.No.406 of 2024 was filed under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act and Section 151 of C.P.C seeking to send the alleged will dated 25.01.2003 to the handwriting expert for comparison of signatures of 7 deceased Madda Daniel with that of his signatures available in the letter dated 21.03.1998. The said applications were dismissed by the Court below vide orders dated 18.03.2024, holding that at the stage of arguments, the plaintiffs came up with those petitions to reopen the matter and to summon to the witnesses was only to drag on the proceedings and there were no bonafide grounds in the petitions. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 5. At this stage, this Court feels it relevant to extract Section 45 of the Evidence Act and the same is as under: "45. Opinions of experts.--When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting 2 [or finger impressions], the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, 3 [or in questions as to identity of handwriting] 2 [or finger impressions] are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts. Illustrations (a) The question is, whether the death of A was caused by poison. The opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison by which A is supposed to have died, are relevant. (b) The question is, whether A, at the time of doing a certain act, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The opinions of experts upon the question whether the symptoms exhibited by A, commonly show unsoundness of mind, and whether such unsoundness of mind usually 8 renders persons incapable of knowing the nature of the acts which they do, or of knowing that what they do is either wrong or contrary to law, are relevant. (c) The question is, whether a certain document was written by A. Another document is produced which is proved or admitted to have been written by A. The opinions of experts on the question whether the two documents were written by the same person or by different persons, are relevant." 6. Section 45 of the Act, 1872, inter alia' provides that the Court can call for evidence of experts to form an opinion regarding the genuineness of signatures and handwriting which are relied on by one party and disputed by another party. It is also relevant to note that the power to seek expert opinion under Section 45 of the Act, 1872 is discretionary and depends on facts of each case. In the present case, already evidence is over and expert evidence is not required. 7. Admittedly, the aforesaid suit filed by the petitioners herein for partition and separate possession of the suit scheduled properties was instituted in the year 2003. The respondents/defendants filed their written statements resisting the suit claim. As can be seen from the record, evidence on both sides has been completed and the suit is coming up for arguments at that stage the petitioners/plaintiffs came up with the present Interlocutory Applications, to reopen the suit, to summon certain witnesses and to send the will relied on by the defendants to hand writing expert for comparison of 9 signatures. The petitioners/plaintiffs have not cited any reason as to why they could not file the petitions at an early point of time. 8. A perusal of the order of the trial Court would reveal that the evidence of the plaintiffs was closed on 29.11.2022 and learned counsel for the plaintiffs reported no further evidence. Having reported no further evidence in the year 2022 itself, the petitioners/plaintiffs have chosen to file the present petitions in the year 2024. There being no valid reasons mentioned in the petitions, the trial Court has rightly opined that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the present petitions only to drag on the proceedings. This Court finds no valid grounds to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the trial Court. 9. The Civil Revision Petitions are liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 21.11.2025 SCS/PBS 10 357 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1148, 950, 956 & 1049 of 2024 Dated: 21.11.2025 SCS/PBS