1 APHC010127852025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 771/2025 Between: Kakumani Ranganayakamma ...PETITIONER AND Chennupati Venugopal ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. AYESHA AZMA S Counsel for the Respondent: NIL 2 The Court made the following ORDER: The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.14 of 2024, filed the present revision petition challenging the order dated 14.02.2025, passed in I.A.No.569 of 2024 in O.S.No.14 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court-cum- VIII Additional District Judge at Ongole, whereby the trial Court dismissed the said I.A. filed by the petitioner herein to send the disputed signatures on the sale agreement dated 04.09.2023 along with admitted signatures of the petitioner obtained in open Court to hand writing expert. 2. The petitioner is being represented by the Special General Power of Attorney holder, which is executed on 24.03.2024. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein filed O.S.No.14 of 2024 as against the petitioner herein seeking specific performance of agreement of sale executed on 04.09.2023, in which the petitioner herein filed a written statement denying her signatures on the alleged agreement of sale. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.569 of 2024 under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act and Section 151 C.P.C. for sending the disputed signatures to an expert opinion to compare the disputed signatures with admitted signatures and to give opinion about the signatures on the agreement of sale dated 04.09.2023. 4. The said application was rejected by the Court below observing as follows: 3 “More over at present the suit is at the stage of framing of issues. At this stage it cannot be expected whether any issue relating to the forgery would be framed putting the burden of proof on the petitioner. However initial burden of proof would be always on the plaintiff to prove his case, here in this case the due execution of disputed agreement of sale by the executant. At the initial stage itself the court cannot seek the assistance of hand writing expert leaving the initial basic procedure of conducting trial for collection of all possible positive ocular and documentary evidence from both the parties. In the absence of evidence of petitioner and respondent it cannot be determined/concluded by the court whether opinion of hand writing expert is necessary in this case or not. It is needless to say that report of hand writing expert is just an opinion, but not a substantial piece of evidence. Opinion of expert cannot be look into without corroboration. Here initial evidence of parties are not available. It is very premature to determine this aspect at this stage. In view of the above reasons this court is not inclined to allow the present application. Accordingly the point is answered against the petitioner” 5. Challenging the above order, this revision petition is filed. 6. As the respondent is avoiding to receive notice, this Court, on 01.08.2025, passed interim stay as prayed for by the petitioner, for a period of (4) weeks. Thereafter the said interim order has been extended from time to time. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. Even though notices were sent to the respondent several times to the address as mentioned before the Court below, no representation was made for the respondent. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds raised before the Court below in I.A.No.569 of 2024 and argued that the plaintiff has filed the suit seeking specific performance of agreement of sale deed dated 04.09.2023, in which her signatures were forged and she has also filed written 4 statement duly alleging that the signatures on the alleged agreement of sale are fabricated and do not belong to her. As the signatures on the agreement of sale dated 04.09.2023 do not belong to her, the petitioner requested Court below to send the disputed signatures on the agreement of sale dated 04.09.2023 along with admitted signatures of petitioner obtained in the public Court, to the government hand writing expert to compare the signatures and to give report. It is also stated in the written statement of defendant/petitioner herein that she has already given a report to the Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluka Police Station on 20.02.2024 against the plaintiff/respondent herein alleging forgery of signatures of the defendant and fabrication of the agreement of sale dated 04.09.2023. The police registered a case in Crime No.124 of 2024 under Section 420 IPC. In the said case, the C.I. of police called the plaintiff to the police station and instructed him to furnish the copy of the alleged agreement for verification, but, the plaintiff avoided to furnish the copy of agreement. The plaintiff filed quash petition in Crl.P.No.2183 of 2024 before this Hon’ble High Court, without co-operating for investigation, and the same is pending. The respondent filed counter before the Court below stating that expert opinion is the weakest piece of evidence and there is ample power in the hands of the Court to compare the signature on the vakalat with the signature on the agreement and argued that the petitioner is politically strong woman and she filed case against him because of her political influence in the police station and got it registered even when civil suit is pending. 5 10. As the petitioner contended that the disputed signatures on agreement of sale dated 04.09.2023 are fabricated, the Court below ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to send the disputed signatures along with admitted signatures by obtaining the same in open Court instead of dismissing the petition observing that it is at premature stage to decide the case. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 14.02.2025, passed in I.A.No.569 of 2024 in O.S.No.14 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District Court at Ongole, and the I.A.No.569 of 2024 is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA NSM 28.11.2025 6 449 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 771 of 2025 NSM 28.11.2025