APHC010023982026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the Twenty Seventh day of February, Two Thousand and Twenty Six The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Civil Revision Petition Between: 1. P.Govinda Reddy, S/o. P.Chinna Narayana Reddy, 81 years, cultivation, R/o. Gondhireddypalli village, Raptadu mandal, Ananthapuram District. 1. S.Mahaboob Peera, S/o Gondhireddypalli Village, Raptadu Mandal Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Padmaja Vaka Counsel for the respondent: 1. Sazid Kallur IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the Twenty Seventh day of February, Two Thousand and Twenty Six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.135 of 2026 o. P.Chinna Narayana Reddy, 81 years, cultivation, R/o. Gondhireddypalli village, Raptadu mandal, Ananthapuram District. ...Petitioner / Defendant and , S/o.Khasim Sab, Aged 62 Years, Gondhireddypalli Village, Raptadu Mandal, Ananthapuram District. …Respondent / Plaintiff etitioner: espondent: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Friday, the Twenty Seventh day of February, Two Thousand and Twenty Six o. P.Chinna Narayana Reddy, 81 years, cultivation, R/o. Gondhireddypalli village, Raptadu mandal, Ananthapuram District. / Defendant 62 Years, R/o. Ananthapuram District. / Plaintiff 2 BSB,J C.R.P.No.135 of 2026 The Court made the following order: This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 31.07.2024 dismissing I.A.No.307 of 2023 in O.S.No.370 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu filed by the defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the suit promissory notes marked as Ex.A1 to A8 to hand writing expert for opinion of the disputed signatures of the defendant on the promissory notes by comparing them with his signatures on vakalat and written statement. 2. The respondent herein filed suit against the petitioner for recovery of money basing on Ex.A1 to A8. The defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement in January, 2019 stating that as he had acted as a mediator along with others in disputes of family of the plaintiff wherein the mediators advised the plaintiff and his brothers to support their father, but the plaintiff failed to act as per the advice of the elders while his brothers obeyed the advice, but as the defendant and the other elders demanded the plaintiff to pay his share of Rs.2,00,000/- to his father, this suit was filed by forging the signatures of the defendant due to acquaintance with the signature of the defendant. 3. I.A.No.307 of 2023 was filed by the defendant at the stage of further evidence of the defendant stating that it is essential to send the disputed documents for the opinion of an expert, alleging that his signatures were forged. He wants the disputed signatures to be compared with the signature on his vakalat and the written statement. Though the notice was given to the respondent, no counter was filed by the respondent / plaintiff in spite of very long time and several adjournments given and therefore, the trial Court treated that there was no counter for the respondent. 4. After hearing both the sides, the trial Court dismissed the petition mainly stating that the petition was filed at a belated stage after completion of the evidence of the defendant without any valid reason and for not filing the 3 BSB,J C.R.P.No.135 of 2026 petition at an earlier stage though the written statement was filed very long ago. 5. Aggrieved by the order, the revision petition was filed contending that the petition was erroneously dismissed with a pre-judged mind, though the petition was not opposed by the respondent and that a petition seeking opinion of an expert can be filed at any stage. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the decision of this High Court in Janachaitanya Housing Ltd. Vs. Divya Financiers1, a Court may allow such an application at any stage depending on the circumstances of each case, if exigencies so demand even at belated stage of arguments. She further submitted that the petitioner is a senior citizen of 81 years old and is unnecessarily dragged to the litigation for being a mediator in the family disputes and unless opinion of an expert is received, there can be no proper adjudication. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the reasons given by the trial Court nullify the contention that the Court has a pre-judged opinion to dismiss the petition and that as there is no valid reason for delaying the petition, though written statement was filed very long back, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition. He further submitted that though a petition seeking opinion of an expert can be filed at any stage, unless there is valid reason for not filing in the past, for mere filing sake, the petition need not to be allowed. Insofar as non-filing of counter is concerned, he submitted that the counter was prepared, but it could not be filed as the advocate’s clerk passed away and later on, the counsel had not filed counter in spite of time given and thereafter, the respondent had changed his counsel and meanwhile the petition was disposed by the trial Court and therefore, there is no intention for the respondent not to oppose the petition. 1 2008 (3) ALT 409 (D.B.) 4 BSB,J C.R.P.No.135 of 2026 8. As can be seen from the record, I.A.No.307 of 2023 was dismissed on 31.07.2024. Suppressing the same, a fresh application for the same relief under the same provision of law was filed by the petitioner on 03.09.2024, registered as I.A.No.519 of 2024. It is pending since then till 26.11.2025, when it is brought to the notice of the trial Court that I.A.No.307 of 2023 filed for the similar relief was dismissed on 31.07.2024 by placing an office note on the docket of the petition. Then, this revision petition was filed on 19.01.2026 challenging the previous order in I.A.No.307 of 2023. 9. Though the written statement was filed very long back in January, 2019 alleging forgery of the signatures on the suit promissory notes, no step has been taken to seek the opinion of an expert till the suit reached the stage of further evidence of the defendant when I.A.No.307 of 2023 was filed. There is no reason for waiting till the last stage of the suit. That apart, the above noted facts indicate the attitude of the petitioner in dragging the proceedings. Though a petition seeking opinion of an expert can be filed at any stage of the suit, it does not mean that a party can wait till the fag end of the proceedings and choose to file petition for such a relief at that stage. It should be understood that when circumstances necessitate a party to file petition for such relief at that stage, the relief cannot be declined merely on the ground that it is a belated stage of the suit. The proposition that a petition seeking opinion of an expert can be filed at any stage of the suit does not mean that a party, without availing the opportunity to file it at the earliest possible time, though available, can avoid the same and file it at the end of the proceedings. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that this petition can be filed at any stage. In fact, on consideration of the facts and circumstances in the suit discussed above, there is no merit in favour of the petitioner to grant the relief. This Court does not see any irregularity or illegality committed by the trial Court in passing the order impugned in the revision. 5 BSB,J C.R.P.No.135 of 2026 10. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI 27.02.2026 GRL 6 BSB,J C.R.P.No.135 of 2026 221 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi C.R.P. No.135 of 2026 Dated. 27.02.2026 GRL