Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading : APHC010401802026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI SATURDAY, THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2144 OF 2026 Between: 1. Goda Sitha Maha Lakshmi, W/o. Mohana Rao, aged 69 years, Occ Properties,R/o. Tiruvuru Town and Mandal, Krishna District. ...Petitioner AND 1. Mandal Congress Party, Tiruvuru Mandal, represented by its present President Parvathaneni Jagan Mohana Rao,S/o. Chandra Sekhara Rao, aged about 55 years,R/o. Tiruvuru Town and Mandal, Krishna District. 2. Upplapati Lakshmidas, S/o. Naganna Chowdary, aged 62 years, Ex- President of Mandal Congress. Party,Tiruvuru Mandal, R/o. Tiruvuru Town and Mandal, Krishna District. ...Respondents 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 toBeing aggrieved by the Order dt. 22.06.2026 passed in I.A.No.104 of 2026 in O.S. No.115 of 2016 on the file of the Court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Nuzvid, 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 115 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuzvid, pending disposal of the main Civil Revision Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following order: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2144 OF 2026 ORDER: Heard Sri P.Rishyendra Sai, learned counsel representing Ms.Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 2. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.115 of 2016 filed by the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 & 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit, O.S.No.115 of 2016 for specific performance of contract i.e., execution of regular sale deed in terms of agreement of sale dated 27.10.1999. 3. The defendant – petitioner filed the written statement and has taken the stand vide para – 6 of the written statement dated 28.12.2016 that the signature on the agreement of sale dated 27.10.1999 does not belong to the defendant. 4. However, the suit proceeded and it is after the evidence of the parties have been completed, at the stage of arguments, the petitioner filed I.A.No.104 of 2026 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the agreement of sale dated 27.10.1999 for comparison of signature thereon with alleged admitted signatures. 5. The application has been rejected by an order dated 22.06.2026 by the learned Civil Judge (senior division), Nuzvid. 4 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act can be filed at any stage of the proceedings, including the stage of arguments, so it could not be rejected on the ground of delay. He placed reliance in Janachaitanaya Housing Ltd., Hyderabad v. Divya Financiers, Guntur1. 7. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. 8. The learned Trial Court has taken a view that the application has been filed belatedly after almost 10 years of the institution of the suit. The agreement of sale was revealed in R.C.C.No.01/2009 but no steps were taken though she had knowledge of the agreement of sale, which was also evident from the written statement. It was further observed that the defendant/petitioner in the proceedings of RCC.No.1 of 2009 was examined as PW1 and she in her cross examination dated 18.02.2013 admitted that the signature on the agreement of sale dated 27.10.1999 belonged to her. 9. The rejection of the application is on two grounds. i) that the petitioner in her cross-examination as PW1 in different proceedings had admitted her signatures; and ii) there was undue delay of 10 years to file the application. 10. The correctness of the aforesaid grounds has not been disputed. 1 2008 (4) ALD 339 (DB) 5 11. In Janachaitanaya Housing Ltd. (supra) on the aspect of delay in filing application under Section 45, it was held as under: “16. For the reasons aforementioned, we answer the reference thus : ‘No time could be fixed for filing applications under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the disputed signature or writings to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion and same shall be left open to the discretion of the Curt; for exercising such discretion when exigencies so demand, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the each case’.” 12. In Janachaitanaya Housing Ltd. (supra) therefore it was held that no time has been prescribed for filing the applications and so, the application can be filed at any time but it is still left open to the discretion of the Court for exercising such discretion when the exigencies so demand, depending upon the facts and circumstances. 13. Here, the learned Civil Judge has exercised the discretion in favour of rejecting the application on the ground of undue delay of 10 years. The suit was filed in the year 2016, written statement was filed in the year 2016 itself but the application was filed after 10 years and after the closure of the evidence at the time of arguments. I do not find any illegality in the order in exercise of discretion in the facts and cirucumstances mentioned by the learned Court. 14. The order is sustained on both grounds. 6 15. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J Dated: 19.09.2026 AG 7 155 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2144 OF 2026 Dated: 19.09.2026 AG