APHC010083662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 425/2025 Between: 1. LANKA JAGANNADHAM, , SON OF LATE LANKA VENKATESWARLU, AGED 62 YEARS, ADVOCATE RESIDING AT 17 RAJENDRANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 530 016. (DIED ON 04- 05-2021 ) 2. LANKA SUBRAHMANYAM,, SON OF LATE LANKA VENKATESWARLU, AGED 65 YEARS EMPLOYEE RESIDING AT 17 RAJENDRANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 530 016.DIED ON 21-01- 2019 3. DR. LANKA SATYA RAMA KRISHNA,, SON OF LATE LANKA VENKATESWARLU, AGED 44 YEARS, CARDIOLOGIST, RESIDING AT NIZAM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES PANJAGUTTA, HYDERABAD, REP. BY GPA HOLDER LANKA JAGANNADHAM, SON OF LATE LANKA VENKATESWARLU, AGED 70 YEARS ADVOCATE RESIDING AT 17 RAJENDRANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 530 016. 4. SMT. AKELLA GOWRI PARVATHI,, WIFE OF SRI AKELLA RAMA MURTHY, AGED 68 YEARS, ADVOCATE, EDAI KUDI TOWERS BESIDE STYASAINIGAM SRI NAGAR COLONY HYDERABAD, REP. BY GPA HOLDER LANKA JAGANNADHAM SON OF LATE LANKA VENKATESWARLU GARU AGED 62 YEARS ADVOCATE RESIDING AT 17 RAJENDRANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 530 016. 5. SMT. RAVI GIRIJA,, WIFE OF. SRI RAVI SURYANARAYANA MURTY, AGED 56 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING SREEDEVI RESIDENCY, A.P.S.E.B. COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM 13, REP. BY 2 RRR,J C.R.P.No.425 of 2025 GPA HOLDER LANKA JAGANNADHAM SON OF LATE LANKA VENKATESWARLU,AGED 62 YEARS, ADVOCATE RESIDING AT 17 RAJENDRANAGAR VISAKHAPATNAM 530 016 6. SMT. SISTA RAMA, WIFE OF SRI SISTA SRINIVASA MURTHY, AGED 56 YEARS HOUSEWIFE, FLAT NO. G.A, G.N.R. APARTMENTS, RAMNAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM, REP. BY GPA HOLDER LANKA JAGANNADHAM SON OF LATE LANKA VENKATESWARLU, AGED 70 YEARS ADVOCATE RESIDING AT 17 RAJENDRANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 530 016. 7. SMT. PRAYAGA JALAJA,, WIFE OF SRI PRYAGA VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, REP. BY GPA HOLDER LANKA JAGANNADHAM SON OF LATE LANKA VENKATESWARLU, AGED 71 YEARS, ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT 17 RAJENDRANAGAR VISAKHAPATNAM 530 016. 8. SMT. GARIMELLA VENKATA LAKSHMI, WIFE OF SRI GARIMELLA RAMASWAMY, AS WELL AS DAUGHTER OF LATE LANKA VENKATESWARLU, AGED 54 YEARS, ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT 17 RAJENDRANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 530 016, REP. BY GPA HOLDER LANKA JAGANNADHAM, SON OF LATE LANKA VENKATESWARLU, AGED 62 YEARS, ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT 17 RAJENDRANAGAR VISAKHAPATNAM 530 016. 9. SMT. LANKA KAMESWARI DEVI,, WIFE OF SRI LANKA LATE SUBRAHMANYAM, AGED 59 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE RESIDING AT 17 RAJENDRANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 530 016. 10. DR. LANKA VENKATA LAKSHMI SWETHA,, DAUGHTER OF SRI LANKA LATE SUBRAHMANYAM, AGED 29 YEARS, PAEDIATRICIAN RESIDING AT 17 RAJENDRANAGAR VISAKHAPATNAM 530 016. 11. LANKA VENKATESWARLU, SON OF SRI LANKA LATE SUBRAHMANYAM, AGED 25 YEARS, ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT 17 RAJENDRANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 530 016. 12. SMT. LANKA, UMA WIFE OF SRI LANKA LATE JAGANNADHAM, AGED 65 YEARS HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING AT 17 RAJENDRANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 530 016. 3 RRR,J C.R.P.No.425 of 2025 13. SMT. LANKA KEERTHI, DAUGHTER OF SRI LANKA LATE JAGANNADHAM, AGED 34 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING AT 17 RAJENDRANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 530 016. 14. SMT, LANKA PREETHI, DAUGHTER OF SRI LANKA LATE JAGANNADHAM, AGED 31 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING AT 17 RAJENDRANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 530 016 PETITIONERS 12 TO 14 ARE ADDED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF FIRST PETITIONER/1ST PLAINTIFF AS PER ORDERS IN I.A.NO.31/2022, DATED 13-09-2022 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. SMT BALIREDDY VARAHALAMMA, WIFE OF KANNAYYA, AGED 38 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING AT 6-38-17/12, DRIVERS COLONY, LV NAGAR, CHINNAGANTYADA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. SRI BALIREDDY KANNAYYA, SON OF LATE RAMULU, AGED 45 YEARS, EMPLOYEE, RESIDING AT 6-38-17/12, DRIVERS COLONY, LV NAGAR, CHINNAGANTYADA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. SMT SEETHINA VENKATI, WIFE OF SRI SEETHINA ESWARA RAO, DAUGHTER OF FIRST AND SECOND DEFENDANTS, AGED 25 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING AT 6-38-12/2, DRIVERS COLONY, LV NAGAR, CHINNAGANTYADA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. SRI BALIREDDY SANTHOSH, SON OF SRI BALIREDDY KANNAYYA AGED 22 YEARS, EMPLOYEE RESIDING AT 6-38-17/12, DRIVERS COLONY, LV NAGAR, CHINNAGANTYADA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. SMT GORLA APPALANARASAMMA, WIFE OF NOOKARAJU, AGED 36 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE RESIDING AT C-110, GANGAVARAM VILLAGE, PEDAGANTYADA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 6. GORLA LAKSHMI, WIFE OF PYDIRAJU, AGED 30 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING AT 123, GANGAVARAM VILLAGE, PEDAGANTYADA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 7. SRI SEETHINA VARAHALU, SON OF LATE APPARAO, AGED 35 YEARS EMPLOYEE RESIDING AT 6-38-12/2, DRIVERS COLONY LV NAGAR, CHINNAGANTYADA, VISAKHAPATNAM. (DIED ON 26-01- 4 RRR,J C.R.P.No.425 of 2025 2018) 8. SRI SEETHINA ESWARA RAO, SON OF LATE APPARAO, AGED 35 YEARS, EMPLOYEE, RESIDING AT 6-38-12/2, DRIVERS COLONY, LV NAGAR, CHINNAGANTYADA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 9. SRI SIRAPANASETTI SURI APPARAO, SON OF VEERUNAIDU, AGED 38 YEARS, 30-62-6 R.H.COLONY, VADLAPUDI VISAKHAPATNAM 530 046. 10. SRI CHEPURI SRINIVASARAO, SON OF LATE POTHURAJU, AGED 37 YEARS, 26-8-36, CHINNAGANTYADA, VISAKHAPATNAM- 530 026. 11. SRI MADISETTI DEMUDU, LATE RAMUNAIDU, AGED 43 YEARS, HIG-5, PLOT G-1, SAMATHANAGAR, VUDA COLONY, PEDAGANTYADA, VISAKHAPATNAM 530 044. 12. SMT SEETHINA LAKSHMI, WIFE OF LATE VARAHALU, AGED 42 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE AND AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENT OF 6-38- 12/1, DRIVERS COLONY, L.V. NAGAR, CHINAGANTYADA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 13. SRI SEETHINA DORA BABU, SON OF LATE VARAHALU, AGED 23 YEARS, EMPLOYEE, RESIDENT OF 6-38-12/1, DRIVERS COLONY, L.V. NAGAR, CHINAGANTYADA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 14. SRI SEETHINA RAMAMOHANA RAO, SON OF LATE VARAHALU, AGED 18 YEARS, EMPLOYEE, RESIDENT OF 6-38-12/1, DRIVERS COLONY, L.V. NAGAR, CHINAGANTYADA, VISAKHAPATNAM ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toaggrieved by the Decree AND Orders in I.A. No. 3/2020 in O.S. No. 502/2011 dt. 23-01-2025 on the file of the VIII Additional District and sessions Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka 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 to stay of all further proceedings in O.S.502/20111 on the file of the 5 RRR,J C.R.P.No.425 of 2025 VIII Additional District and sessions Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka pending disposal of the present CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M BALASUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G RAMA GOPAL 2. 6 RRR,J C.R.P.No.425 of 2025 The Court made the following Order: The petitioners herein, filed O.S.No.502 of 2011 before the learned VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka, for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 08.09.1985. The defendants in the Suit, who are said to have executed the said agreement of sale, had placed their thumb impressions on the agreement of sale. As Smt. S. Ramulamma, who had affixed her thumb impression on behalf of four of the six executants, had passed away, the petitioners moved I.A.No.3 of 2020, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for obtaining the thumb impressions of the defendants 1, 2 & 5, for sending the same for comparison with the thumb impressions on the agreement of sale, dated 08.09.1985. 2. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration the objections raised by the respondents, that the application is premature following the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in the case of J.L.Babu Vs. S. Gowri Shanker and another1, dismissed the application by an order, dated 23.01.2025. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have approached this Court, by way of the present Civil Revision Petition. 4. Sri M. Bala Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioners, would contend that, while the application was dismissed, on the ground that, it was 1 2009 (5) ALT 415 7 RRR,J C.R.P.No.425 of 2025 premature, the operative part of the Order effectively bars the petitioners from moving similar applications. A perusal of the Order would show that the contention of Sri M. Bala Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioners, is well founded. 5. While accepting the view of the Trial Court that the application was premature and should be filed only after the actual stand of the parties emerge, this Court must also record that the operative part of the Order effectively bars the petitioners from moving a fresh application as it is recorded that the petitioners are not entitled for the relief of seeking thumb impressions taken in open Court for scientific expert for comparison. Such an absolute bar requires to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, by holding that I.A.No.3 of 2020, was a premature application. However, the closure of this application would not in any manner affect the right of the petitioners to move a similar application, in future, at the appropriate time. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Date:04.07.2025 KPV 8 RRR,J C.R.P.No.425 of 2025 254 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:425 of 2025 04.07.2025 KPV