APHC010087842025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 470/2025 Between: 1. ALLA SATYA RAO, S/O. LATE TATA RAO, AGED 61 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.8-129, SARADANAGAR, H/O PENDURTHI, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY. 2. ALLA SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. LATE RAMUNAIDU, 54 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.6-169/2, AYYAPPANAGAR, SHEELANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. INAGADAPA RAMBABU, S/O. RAMAKRISHNA MURTHY, 60 YEARS,R/O. Q.N0.415/D, SECTOR-6, UKKUNAGARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. INAGADAPA RADHA MADHAVI, W/O. RAMBABU, AGE 52 YEARS,R/O. Q.N0.415/D, SECTOR-6, UKKUNAGARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. VALLABHANENI PADMAJA, W/O. SRINIVASA RAO, AGE 59 YEARS, R/O. PLOT NO.342, SUJATHANAGAR, B ZONE, CHINAMUSHIDLVADA, VISAKHAPATNAM 5300073 ...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 tomay be pleased to setting aside the order passed in 2 RRR, J & JS, J C.R.P.No.470 of 2025 i.A.No.319/2024 in OS.No. 1323/2017 on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam and pass such 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 may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in OS.No.1323/2017 On the file of II Add!. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K K DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA 3 RRR, J & JS, J C.R.P.No.470 of 2025 The Court made the following order: Heard Sri K. K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Narasimharao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners herein had filed O.S.No.1323 of 2017 on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam, for a declaration that the registered sale deeds, dated 22.08.1984 and 06.09.2003 are not binding on the petitioners, as the same had been created in favor of the 3rd defendant in the suit and by suppression of the fact that a Khararunama, dated 23.01.1989, had already been executed in favour of Smt. P. D. Sumathi, after which she had executed a registered deed of sale, dated 23.01.1989. 3. 3. It appears that the vendor of the petitioners herein had earlier filed O.S.No.147 of 2007 against defendants 1 & 2 in the present suit, for injunction, which came to be dismissed on 17.10.2017. An appeal bearing A.S.No.242 of 2018 is said to have been filed against the order of dismissal. The deeds of sale, dated 22.08.1984 and 06.09.2003, which are the subject matters of dispute, in the present suit, are marked as Exhibits B1 and B2 in the course of trial in O.S.No.147 of 2007 and the originals of these documents are in the custody of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in A.S.No.242 of 2018. 4. The petitioners herein moved I.A.No.319 of 2024 in O.S.No.1323 of 2017, for production of these originals, for the purpose of comparing 4 RRR, J & JS, J C.R.P.No.470 of 2025 Exhibits B1 and B2 with Exhibits A4 and A9, which have been marked in the present suit. 5. This application came to be dismissed on 26.06.2024, on the ground that the certified copies of Exhibits B1 and B2 have already been produced in the present suit and there is no necessity to summon the originals in as much as the said certified copies of the said documents are available for comparison. 6. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have approached this Court, by way of the present Civil Revision Petition. 7. Sri K. K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the purpose for seeking production of these documents is to compare the signatures on these documents with the signatures of Exhibits A4 and A9 and such comparison cannot be carried out on the basis of signatures available in certified copies. 8. Sri G. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the prayer in the Interlocutory Application only sought production of the documents for the purpose of comparing these documents with Exhibits A4 and A9. He would submit that the prayer in the application is absolutely silent regarding the requirement of comparing the signatures in these documents. He would submit that, in such circumstances, the view taken by the Trial Court cannot be interfered with in as much as the 5 RRR, J & JS, J C.R.P.No.470 of 2025 comparison of the documents can be done by comparing the certified copies of Exhibits B1 and B2 with Exhibits A4 and A9. 9. Though the prayer in the application does not mention about comparison of signatures, the tone and tenor of the affidavit, filed in support of the application, as well as the entire prayer would only suggest that the documents are required for comparison of signatures. In such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that such comparison cannot be made by comparing signatures on certified copies with signatures on original documents is well founded. 10. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order of the learned II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam, dated 26.06.2024, in I.A.No.319 of 2024 in O.S.No.1323 of 2017, with a further direction that the said documents are to be produced before the learned II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam, from the file of the A.S.No.242 of 2018 in the Court of learned IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J 18.07.2025 MJA 6 RRR, J & JS, J C.R.P.No.470 of 2025 314 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 470 of 2025 18.07.2025 MJA