APHC010574602024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 3169 of 2024 and 85 of 2025 Between: Sri Lavani Fakrullah Khan @ Babjan ...PETITIONER AND Lavania Zahara and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava Counsel for the respondent(s): 1. N. Pramod 2 C.R.P.Nos.3169 of 2024 and 85 of 2025 The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.3169 of 2024 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 02.12.2024, passed in I.A.No.314 of 2024 in O.S.No.402 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Madanapalle. I.A.No.314 of 2024 is filed under Order XVI, Rule 1 C.P.C. to summon the Sub-Registrar, Madanapalle and to cause produce the documents i.e., Ex.B3 and Ex.A16 and its signatures and thumb impressions and to give evidence. 2. C.R.P.No.85 of 2025 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 02.12.2024, passed in I.A.No.313 of 2024 in O.S.No.402 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Madapalle. I.A.No.313 of 2024 is filed under Section 151 C.P.C. to reopen the case and to summon the Sub-Registrar, Madanapalle, with regard to signatures and thumb impressions of executants in Ex.B3 and Ex.A16 and to give evidence. 3. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: a. The petitioner / plaintiff filed O.S.No.402 of 2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, for partition of suit schedule properties against the defendants / respondents herein. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte before the Trial Court, only defendant No.3 filed written statement. Further, defendant No.3 filed I.A.No.68 of 2024 under Order XVIII, Rule 17 C.P.C. to recall D.W.1 and permit him to bring some documents. The petition was 3 C.R.P.Nos.3169 of 2024 and 85 of 2025 allowed on 20.03.2024. On 01.04.2024, examination-in-chief of D.W.1 was recorded and Ex.B3 to Ex.B6 were marked. It is the vehement contention of the defendant No.3 that the plaintiff has sold Ac.1.75 cents of suit schedule property in Sy.No.1629/2 under Ex.B3, but certified copy produced does not contain any signatures and thumb impressions of the alleged executant. b. Hence, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.314 of 2024 to compare the signatures and thumb impressions in Ex.B3 with Ex.A16 (special power of attorney of the plaintiff). c. The defendant No.3 / respondent No.3 filed counter contending that Ex.B3 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 18.07.1981 executed by the plaintiff in favour of E.Chinna Venkatappa and the plaintiff never denied the said document and that the plaintiff not filed any rejoinder questioning the execution of Ex.B3, hence, comparing it with Ex.A16 does not arise. d. After hearing both parties, the Trial Court dismissed the petition in I.A.No.314 of 2024 observing as follows: “It is to be noted that those two documents are registered documents, one is of the year 1981 and another is of the year 2022. So, comparing those documents which has gap of more than 40 years is of no use. If the plaintiff wants to deny the document under Ex.B.3, he can produce necessary oral or documentary evidence but not by summoning the Sub-Registrar. The record shows that the suit is of the year 2013 and one of the identified cases on the file of this Court. Both parties have been given ample opportunities to produce as much evidence as possible and when the matter is ripe for disposal, the plaintiff has come up with this petition, which has no merits. In the said circumstances, this petition is liable to be dismissed.” 4 C.R.P.Nos.3169 of 2024 and 85 of 2025 e. The petition in I.A.No.313 of 2024 was also dismissed, in view of the dismissal of I.A.No.314 of 2024. 4. Aggrieved by the orders, these revision petitions were filed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner / plaintiff and learned counsel for the respondents / defendants. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal and tainted with material irregularity. He further submitted that Ex.B3 was filed before the Trial Court only at the time of adducing evidence and the petitioner has filed the petition in I.A.No.314 of 2024 immediately thereafter for just decision of the case and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. He further submitted that the Trial Court has not taken legal and factual aspects into account and mechanically dismissed the petition without adverting to the contentions of the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents, in consonance with the orders passed by the Trial Court, submitted that the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the petitions. 8. Section 73A of the Indian Evidence Act reads as follows: “Proof as to verification of digital signature.–– In order to ascertain whether a digital signature is that of the person by whom it purports to have been affixed, the Court may direct –– (a) that person or the Controller or the Certifying Authority to produce the Digital Signature Certificate; (b) any other person to apply the public key listed in the Digital Signature Certificate and verify the digital signature purported to have been affixed by that person.” 5 C.R.P.Nos.3169 of 2024 and 85 of 2025 9. In the impugned order, the Trial Court observed that the two documents sought for comparison have gap of more than 40 years and since the Ex.B3 is of the year 1981 and Ex.A16 is of the year 2022. As per Section 73-A of the Indian Evidence Act, the possibility of comparing digital signature is also not viable as the document is of the year 1981 by which time digital signature is not implemented. 10. Therefore this Court is of the opinion that the Trial Court did commit no error warranting interference of this Court in the orders dated 02.12.2024, passed in I.A.Nos.313 and 314 of 2024 in O.S.No.402 of 2013, and the revisions are devoid of merits, consequently, the revision are liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in these Civil Revision Petitions, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dt.26.12.2025 NSM 6 C.R.P.Nos.3169 of 2024 and 85 of 2025 91 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 3169 of 2024 and 85 of 2025 Dt.26.12.2025 NSM