APHC010056912025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI I • THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 275 OF 2025 Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order 07.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.210 of 2024 in A.S.No.176 of 2024 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopet. Between: Katta Koteswara Rao, S/o Padma Rao, aged about 54 years. Govt. Employee, R/o D.No.7-327, Venkatadri Nagar, Narasaraopet Town, Palnadu District. ...PETITIONER/DEFENDANT AND Inturi Ashok, S/o Koteswara Rao, Aged about 48 years, R/o Door No. 1- 69, Tatapudi Village, Chilakaluripet Mandal, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF lA 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 stay all further proceedings in A.S. No. 176 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopet during the pendency of the CRP before this Hon’ble Court. I i : SRI VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA, Counsel for the Petitioner .Advocate Counsel for the Respondent: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following ORDER: APHC010056912025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3207] THURSDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FiVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 275/2025 Between: 1.KATTA KOTESWARA RAO, S/0 PADMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, GOVT. EMPLOYEE, R/0 D.NO.7-327, VENKATADRI NAGAR, NARASARAOPET TOWN, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.INTURI ASHOK, S/o Koteswara Rao, Aged about 48 years, R/o Door No. 1-69, Tatapudi Village Chilakaluripet Mandal, Guntur 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 set aside the order, dated 07-11-2024 in I.A No.210/2024 in A.S.No. 176/2024 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopet lA 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 stay all further proceedings in A.S. No. 176/2024 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopet during the pendency of the CRP before this Hon’ble Court Counsel for the Petitioner: 1 .VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA ■ 2 ' Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: P P 3 JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND pfttTIQN NO.275 of 2025 the HON'BLE SRI rTVTL revision -r ORDER: filed aggrieved by the A.S.No.176 of Petition has been This Civil Revision order, dated 07.11.2024 in 2024, on the Division), Narasaraopet ( I.A.No.210 of 2024 in Principal Civil Judge (Senior file of the Court of First Appellate Court" for short). Heard Sri A. Venkata Durga Rao, learned counsel for the material available on record. 2) petitioner and perused the The petitioner respondent herein is the plaintiff in Principal Junior Civil Judge and the is the defendant O.S.No.61 of 2018 on , Chilakaluripet Ctrial Court" for short), that the plaintiff filed the suit based on the both sides herein 3) the file of 4) The facts of the case are defendant for recovery of money against the On hearing notes before the trial Court. promissory Felt decreed the suit with costs. counsel, the learned trial Judge A.S.No.176 * defendant preferred an appeal in aggrieved thereby, the of 2024 before the defendant the First Appellate Court. Pending the said appeal. send the and the admitted Government Expert for its of 2024 seeking to filed I.A.No.210 marked as Ex.A.l note which was promissory to the of the petitioner signatures VD comparison and for opinion.' On hearing both sides counsel, the t learned First Appellate Judge dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner filed a petition before the trial Court to seek the opinion of ' the expert about his signature on the disputed document with the admitted signatures and the same was allowed by the trial Court, but his Advocate failed to file admitted comparative material In the trial Court, as such, he could not file comparative material in time. , Therefore, he prayed to set aside the order, dated 07.11.2024 in I.A.No.210 of 2024 in A.S.No.l76 of 2024. 6) Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the evidence which was already on record establishes that the very execution of the promissory note and therefore, the suit was decreed by the trial Court. The petitioner was already filed petition in I.A.No.1276 of 2019 before the trial Court for the same relief and the same was dismissed on merits. The petitioner did not prefer revision against the said orders. The petitioner failed to produce the admitted signatures of the petitioner at the relevant point of time to send the same for the expert opinion for its comparison. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. I .4 ■ 7) Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material available on record, the suit in O.S.No.61 of 2018 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet, filed for recovery of money based on suit The suit was decreed. promissory note, dated 30.07.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant in the suit filed appeal in In the said A.S.No.176 of 2024 before the First Appellate Court, appeal, he filed an Interlocutory Application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, praying to send the promissory note which was marked as Ex.A.l and the admitted signatures of the defendant to the Government Expert for comparison and for opinion. Admittedly, the promissory note, dated 30.07.2015 was marked as Ex.A.l in the suit. For the purpose of comparison of the same with the admitted of the defendant, the petition filed by the defendant signatures before the trial Court so as to send the Ex.A. 1/promissory note to dismissed due to the reason that he failed to Now, in the appeal, the the expert was produce the admitted signatures of him. petitioner/defendant filed the similar petition. As the petitioner has already exercised his right to file the petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, which was dismissed on 20.12.2019 in I.A.No.1276 of 2019, he is not entitled to file the petition seeking relief at the appellate stage. In fact, the defendant having same 6 right to file petition against the orders passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1276 of 2019 in O.S.No.61 of 2018, but without utilizing the preferred the present petition seeking the same ' said remedy, he relief in the appeal for which he is not entitled. after considering all these aspects has The trial Court passed reasoned order dismissing the petition, opinion of this Court, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court and as such, this Court is not inclined to 8) In the considered interfere into the same. Accordingly, this 'Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. . There shall be no order as to costs. 9) As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall SD/- K.J.RAJABABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR stand closed. // //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1. The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopet, Guntur District. 2. One CC to Sri Venkata Durga Rao Anantha, Advocate [OPUC] VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at 3. The Section Officer, Amaravathi 4. Two CD Copies GPC TAC HIGH COURT DATED: 14/08/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 275 OF 2025 ANDH^% s 15 SEP 2025 mi . Current Seciion ^ . DISMISSING THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION