APHC010484582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2535/2025 Between: 1. KODE SRINIVASA RAO @ SRINU,, S/O LATE RAJA RAO, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION, R/O VEERANNAPALEM, PARCHUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. YARLAGADDA VASANTHAMMA, W/o Late Raghavaiah, Aged about 73 Years, Occ- Cultivation, R/o Veerannapalem, Parchur Mandal, Prakasam District Andhra Pradesh ...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 topleased to set aside the order dated 23-06-2025 passed In the Court of the Honble Junior Civil Judge, Parchur in I.A. No. 247 /2024 in O.S. No. 132/2020 and to pass 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 pleased stay all further proceedings in O.S No. 132 of 2020 on the file of the Hon'ble Court Junior Civil Judge, Parchur, pending the Civil Revision Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D V SASIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2535 OF 2025 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 23.06.2025 passed in I.A.No.247 of 2024 in O.S.No.132 of 2020 on the file of Court of Junior Civil Judge, Parchur. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is the defendant in the Suit and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the Suit. The respondent herein filed the Suit for recovery of money based on the promissory notes. In the said suit, the petitioner herein filed an I.A.247 of 2024 under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 151 of C.P.C., 1908 seeking to send the suit promissory note i.e., Ex-A1 to the Director Hand Writing Expert i.e., Forensic Sciences Laboratories, Amaravathi to find out whether the Suit Promissory Note is materially altered in the year column by adding “1(one) after 0 inserting as 2010 and it is created as 2019 or not. After hearing, the Trial Court dismissed the said I.A. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submits that pending the revision, the Trial Court decreed the Suit in favour of the respondent herein. He further submits that in view of the said decree, the petitioner herein is entitled to prefer an Appeal assailing the order and decree passed in O.S.No.132 of 2020 under Section 105 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He further submits that in terms of Section 105 of the C.P.C, the petitioner is entitled to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority. 4. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the record. 5. As contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the petitioner herein is entitled to prefer an Appeal against the order and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.132 of 2020 in terms of Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 6. For understanding, Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure is extracted hereunder: “105:Other orders.—(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided, no appeal shall lie from any order made by a Court in the exercise of its original or appellate jurisdiction; but where a decree is appealed from, any error, defect or irregularity in any order, affecting the decision of the case, may be set forth as a ground of objection in the memorandum of appeal. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any party aggrieved by an order of remand 2*** from which an appeals lies does not appeal therefrom, he shall thereafter be precluded from disputing its correctness. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that pending revision petition, the suit itself was decreed.” 7. In view of the clear and categorical submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of Section 105 of the CPC., the petitioner is entitled to prefer an Appeal challenging the order and decree passed in O.S.No.132 of 2020 before the appellate authority. In view of the order and decree passed in O.S.No.132 of 2020, the present civil revision petition becomes infructuous. 8. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an Appeal before the appellate authority challenging the order and decree passed in O.S.No.132 of 2020 and interim application or petitions, if any, as necessary. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 05.11.2025 BSP 129 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2535 of 2025 05.11.2025 BSP