APHC010006222026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] FRIDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 75/2026 Between: 1. MOHAMMED ISMAIL, S/O. K.MOINUDDIN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC R/O.D.NO.8-5/1-2/1, OLD CBI DOWN, CHINNA WALTAIR, VISKHAPATNAM-3 ...PETITIONER AND 1. MEER MOHAMMED MUJAHEDULLAH, S/o. M.M. Hafeezullah, Aged 54 years, Occ R/o. D.No.12-2-123, BRP Road, Panja Centre, Islam Peta, Vijayawada. ...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 topleased to allow the Revision Petition by SETTING ASIDE the order and decree dated 03-11-2025 passed in I.A.No.421 OF 2025 in O.S.No.608 of 2023 by the Honble lll Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Visakhapatnam and consequently dismiss the same in the interest of justice and pass 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 pleased to grant STAY in main suit O.S.No.608/2023 on the file of llll Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Visakhapatnam; and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 1. MOHAMMED GAYASUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 75/2026 ORDER: Heard Sri Mohammed Gayasuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.608 of 2023 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam. The suit was filed based on the promissory note, dated 03.07.2020, said to be executed by the defendant/respondent. The defendant denied and disputed the same. 3. The petitioner/defendant also filed I.A.No.421 of 2025 for comparision of the signatures on the alleged promissory note with his admitted signatures on the documents i.e. the registered cancellation deeds dated 26.09.2016 and 12.07.2019. 4. The respondent/plaintiff filed objections. 5. On consideration of the matter, the learned Trial Court, has allowed the application vide order dated 03.11.2025 and directed to send Ex.A1, the promissory note, for comparision of the disputed signatures with the signature on the aforesaid two documents. 4 6. Challenging the order dated 03.11.2025, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 7. The learned Trial Court has recorded that the documents, the registered cancellation deeds are the contemporaneous documents to the execution of the promissory note. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents, the registered cancellation deeds were not between the parties but they were in favour of the third parties. However, he could not dispute that as per the defendant’s case those documents contained the admitted signatures of the defendant. 9. The documents, registered cancellation deeds are of the year 2016 and 2019. Whereas, the promissory note is of the year 2020. Consequently, I do not find any illegality in the order of the learned Trial Court in directing for comparision of the signatures on the disputed documents with the documents of the year 2016 and 2019 10. The petitioner shall have the right to raise objections to the expert’s report after the same is filed, if the occasion so arises and so no prejudice is caused at this stage in sending the promissory note for comparision of signature with the admitted signatures on contemporaneous documents, as may be permissible under law. 5 11. With the aforesaid observations, the Civil Revision Petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date: 30.01.2026 Pab 6