APHC010476572025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2575/2025 Between: 1. SMT. KANTIPUDI TULASI RATNAM,, W/O.SITARAMAHANUMANTHA RAO, AGED 72 YEARS, FEMALE, HINDU, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O. D.NO.3-44 NANDAMURU, KOVVURMANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI VEGI SATYANARAYANA, S/o. (late) Somanna, Aged 68 years, Hindu, Male, Occ. Cultivation, R/o. D.No.6-123, Pasivedala, ChagalluMandal, West Godavari District. ...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 to allow the revision petition in I.A.No.661 of 2025 in O.S.No.142 of 2014 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kovvur, 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No:142 of 2014 on the file of the Hon’ble Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kovvur, IA NO: 2 OF 2025 2 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 vacate the order dated 10.10.2025 passed in C.R.P.No. 2575 of 2025 and dismiss the present petition with exemplary costs and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J VENKATA RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. DEVI PRASAD MANGALAPURI The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Petitioner/plaintiff in I.A.No.661/2025 in O.S.No.142/2014 filed the above revision against the order dated 07.8.2025 in I.A.No.661/2025 in O.S.No.142/2014 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kovvur, West Godavari District. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner/plaintiff herein filed I.A.No.661/2025 in O.S.No.142/2014 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kovvur, West Godavari District, under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 praying the Court to send the disputed thumb impression of Vegi Seethamma on Ex.B1 Will to compare the same with the admitted thumb impression of Vegi Seethamma on the Will marked as Ex.A1 to the Forensic Expert at CID Office, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. After filing counter, the Court concerned has passed the following order: “On perusal of the record, and petition affidavit according to the petitioner/plaintiff the respondent admitted thumb impression of his mother in Ex.A-1 but however, he is claiming the right through Ex.B-1 Will, so that the petitioner sought for comparison of thumb impression of Ex.A-1 and Ex.B1 belongs to Vegi Seethamma. On the other hand, the respondent denied the thumb impression on Ex.A1 belongs to Vegi Seethamma, so the question of comparison with Ex.A-1 Will by Ex.B-1 Will does not arise. Moreover, the Ex.B-1 Will is laminated which cannot be possible to comparison of thumb mark with any other document and more particularly with Ex.A1 Will as there is no proof of thumb mark of Vegi Seethamma in Ex.A-1 Will. With the above discussion the petition is devoid on merits and the petition is dismissed.” 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision is filed. 4 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that the respondent/defendant admitted the document in her written statement filed on 07.7.2014. In fact, in the written statement, the respondent/ defendant has categorically admitted the existence of first will dated 07.6.2002. Hence Ex.B1 should be send for an Expert opinion for comparison with Ex.A1 which is admitted by the defendant in her written statement. 5. In reply to the same, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/defendant has submitted that they admitted with regard to existence of the said document but they never admitted that Ex.A1 is the same and they have also made submissions basing on the counter that they are ready and willing to send Ex.B1 for comparison with any registered document which contains thumb impression of Vegi Seethamma. 6. In the said circumstances, this Court is also concurring with the same opinion. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner/plaintiff herein to make a fresh application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send Ex.B1 for comparison with any admitted signature of Vegi Seethamma on any registered documents. No costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH 21.11.2025 RD 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2575 of 2025 21.11.2025 RD