IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 177 OF 2021 Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 23.12.2020 in I.A.No.655 of 2020 in A.S.No.13 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru. Between: 1. SattiKaniki Reddy, S/o. Nagireddy, aged 48 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. D.No. 10-16-28, 18th Ward, Tallamudurupadu, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 2. Satti Manga Devi, W/o. Kaniki Reddy, aged 43 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. D.No. 10-16-28, 18th Ward, Tallamudurupadu, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. ...Petitioners/Appellants/Defendants AND Padala Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o. Adireddy, aged 65 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. D.No.10-16-28, Pentapadu Village and Mandal, West Godavari District. ...Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff jA NO: 1 OF onoi Petition under Section 151 of CPC stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in A.S. No. 13 of 2017 on the fiie of the Court of the Principal District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru pending disposal of the above revision petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI RAMBABU Counsel for the Respondent: M/S MANASA The Court made the following Order: praying that in the circumstances KOPPINEEDI KANNEGANTI APHC010067872021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 177/2021 Between: Sattikaniki Reddy, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Padala Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.RAMBABU KOPPINEEDI Counsel for the Respondent: 1.MANASA KANNEGANTI The Court made the following: ...RESPONDENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION N0.177 of 2021 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 23.12.2020 in I.A.No.655 of 2020 in A.S.No.13 of 2017 passed by the Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. 1. 2. The Petitioners are the Appellants and Defendants in the suit O.S.No.65 of 2009. The suit was filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,67,500/- on the basis of a promissory note said to have been executed by the Defendants on 03.04.2006. On contest, the said suit was decreed on 24.03.2015 directing the Defendants to pay Rs.7,67,500/- together with subsequent interest on the principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/- at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization. Questioning the same, the Petitioners/Defendants filed A.S.No.13 of 2017. During pendency of the appeal, the Petitioners/Defendants filed the above application i.e. I.A.No.655 of 2020 under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act to send the suit promissory note dated 03.04.2006 to the Government Handwriting Expert for comparison of the alleged signature with the admitted signatures of the Defendant No.l/Petitioner No.1. The said application was dismissed. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 3. j Heard Sri Rambabu Koppineedi, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy, proxy counsel for M/s. Manasa Kanneganti, learned counsel for the Respondent. 4. 2 The counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioner No. 1/husband could not contest the case though Petitioner No.2/wife had filed written statement and contested the suit. Therefore, he sought for reference of the suit promissory note to the Expert for opinion in the interest of justice. 5. The counsel for the Respondent contended that the application filed by the Petitioners/Defendants is the requirement during the trial and the same cannot be entertained in appeal and he further contended that the Petitioner No.2/wife in her deposition had admitted her signature on Ex.A.1 suit promissory note. 6. Considering the fact that the Petitioner No.2/wife said to have admitted her signature and the Petitioner No. 1/husband being aware of the suit and having not taken any steps for sending the suit promissory note to the Expert in the trial Court, cannot seek for reference to the Expert for opinion at the stage of appeal. Further, the Petitioner No.2 admitted to her signature on suit promissory note and the plea of Petitioners appears more to procrastinate the appeal. 7. 8. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the Revision. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. 9. Sd/-B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ' SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru. (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri Rambabu Koppineedi, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to M/s. Manasa Kanneganti, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 5. Three CD Copies sree i HIGH COURT DATED:04/02/2025 ORDER CRP.No.177of2021 t? II I I MAR 2075 ★ Current aection . DISMISSING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS