APHC010099932025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 581/2025 Between: 1.VUYYURU RAMI REDDY, S/O.LATE SAMBI REDDY, AGED ABT 47 YEARS, R/O. 11-196, MUNNANGI VILLAGE, KOLLIPARA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1.KONDA HARI KRISHNA REDDY, S/O.LATE NAGI REDDY @MINI NAGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.3-23, NEAR PULAGAMVARI STREET, JONNALAGADDA VILLAGE, GUNTUR RURAL MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.KONDA SANDEEP REDDY, S/O.LATE NAGI REDDY @MINI NAGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.3-23, NEAR PULAGAMVARI STREET, JONNALAGADDA VILLAGE, GUNTUR RURAL MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...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 topleased to set-aside the order dated 30.01.2025 passed in I.A.No.927 of 2024 in O.S.No.175 of 2017 by Principal Civil Judge(Senior Division), Tenali and allow the Revision as prayed for and pass 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 2 pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.175 of 2017 by Principal Civil Judge(Senior Division), Tenali, pending disposal of the main Civil Revision Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.ANAND KUMAR KOCHIRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.ALAPATI LALITH NIKHIL The Court made the following: ORDER: Impugning the orders passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali in I.A.No.927 of 2024 in O.S.No.175 of 2017 dated 30.01.2025, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondents are the plaintiffs in the Suit. 3. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a Suit vide O.S.No.175 of 2017, on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali, for partition of the plaint schedule property into two equal shares and to allot ½ share to the plaintiffs with separate metes and bounds and to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioner/defendant is claiming that Ac.0.51 cents out of item No.2 and item No.1 of the suit schedule property was bequeathed to him by his mother under Will dated 19.09.2014. After completion of the evidence on both sides, the petitioner/defendant herein filed I.A.No.927 of 2024, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, praying the Court to send the original Will dated 19.09.2014 to the fingerprint expert, APFSL, Vaddeswaram, for comparison of admitted thumb impressions of his 3 mother in Ex.A2 i.e., Original Registered Partition Deed executed among Vuyyuru Sivamma and her brothers, with the registered Will in Ex.B1 dated 19.09.2014, on the ground that the respondents are denying the execution of the Will dated 19.09.2014. The plaintiffs/respondents filed a counter denying the allegations raised in the grounds and contended that Ex.A2 is not a contemporaneous document to compare with the thumb impression on Ex.B1 and prayed to dismiss the interlocutory application. 4. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the said interlocutory application. Impugning the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 5. Heard Sri Anand Kumar Kochiri, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Alapati Lalith Nikhil, learned counsel for the respondents. 6. While reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application and the grounds of revision, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the petitioner/defendant examined the attestor and the witnesses to Ex.B1-Will, as the plaintiffs specifically denied the thumb impression of the executant of the Will i.e., the grandmother of the plaintiffs and mother of the defendant, it necessitated the defendant to file such an application for expert opinion for comparison of the thumb impression on Ex.B1-Will and Ex.A2-Registered Partition Deed. The Court below erroneously dismissed the said application without any cogent reasons. No prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff if such an application is allowed and the Will is sent for comparison. The Court below simply dismissed the 4 application on the ground of some minor discrepancies in the alleged Will. If the said document is sent for comparison to the expert, the report could be used as an aid to the trial Court while adjudicating the Suit, and as such prayed to allow the revision and also I.A.No.927 of 2024. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, while justifying the orders passed by the trial Court, contended that it is for the petitioner herein/defendant to prove the Will before the Court below and only to gather some evidence and to drag on the suit, such an application is filed at the fag end of the trial. Even otherwise, the expert report is not a conclusive proof and no valid grounds are raised or urged warranting interference of this Court with the well-versed order passed by the trial Court. 8. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 9. The case of the petitioner/defendant is that his mother executed a Will in his favour bequeathing the suit schedule property. The respondents/plaintiffs are the grandson of the mother of the defendant and the defendant is none other than the maternal uncle of the plaintiffs. Admittedly, the evidence on both sides has been completed and at that stage such an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act has been filed by the defendant to send the Will purported to have been executed in favour of the defendant by his mother for comparison with Ex.A2-registered partition deed on the sole ground that the plaintiff denied the thumb impression of the executant on the Will. 5 10. The defendant is claiming the suit schedule property by way of Ex.B1-Will dated 19.09.2014, whereas the plaintiffs are denying the very execution of the Will. In the said circumstances, it is for the defendant to prove that the Will is executed in his favour. 11. The defendant, who is the propounder of the Will, examined as D.W.1, and in his cross-examination he has contended that the Will has been executed by his mother before the Sub-Registrar, Tadikonda, but whereas the Will is an unregistered one. Further, before the Court below, the attestor of the Will in his cross-examination has stated that Vuyyuru Sivamma i.e., the mother of the defendant, did not execute any document in favour of any person. The same was duly observed by the trial Court while dismissing the application. The trial Court also observed that as there is evidence available on record, sending the document for comparison does not arise. The Court below has given sufficient reasons while dismissing the application. The petitioner has not raised any valid grounds warranting the interference of this Court. This Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 23rd JANUARY, 2026 MH 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 249 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 581 of 2025 Date: 23rd JANUARY, 2026 MH