1 APHC010128992023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 724/2023 Between: M/s Kadiyala Constructions ...PETITIONER AND Bonthu Veera Venkata Satya Tataji Prasad and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P RAJESH BABU The Court made the following order: The present civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by orders dated 13.02.2023 in I.A.No.199 of 2023 in O.S.No.130/2015 on the file of the Court of the learned Family Court Cum IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. The petitioner filed a suit vide O.S.No.130/2015 for recovery of money. In the said suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.199/2023 under Section 45 of the 2 Evidence Act, 1872 for sending the written understanding and development agreement cum GPA dated 30.08.2007 to the handwriting expert for getting opinion so as to enable the petitioner to proceed further. The same was denied by the defendants through written statement that the petitioner came out with the above documents with fabricated signatures as a counterblast to the suit filed by the respondents/defendants in O.S.No.145/2014. After hearing both the parties, the court below has dismissed the said application under its orders dated 13.02.2023 on the ground that no admitted signatures on authentic documents are available for comparison. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of the revision would contend that the respondents/defendants being site owners along with other co-owners entered into development agreement cum GPA dated 30.08.2007 with the petitioner/plaintiff for construction of an apartment complex. He further submitted that, for the development of the site, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the respondents as interest free security deposit for fulfillment of its obligations, refundable after completion of the apartment complex and that the respondents have executed a written understanding dated 30.08.2007 and basing on the same, the petitioner filed the suit for recovery of money together with interest, which was denied by the respondents/defendants alleging that the written understanding and documents 3 were forged and fabricated. He further submitted that, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed I.A.No.199/2023 for sending the documents to the handwriting expert for getting opinion and the said application was dismissed by the court below on the ground that no admitted signatures on authentic documents are available for comparison. The court below has failed to consider that if the alleged documents were sent for examination, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents/defendants and the fact, whether the documents are fabricated or not will be known. Without considering the same, the court below has erroneously dismissed the said application. As such prayed allow the present revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that, the court below has rightly dismissed the said application as the above referred documents are fabricated and forged as the counterblast to the suit filed by the respondents/defendants in O.S.No.145/2014. Therefore, the petitioner has not raised any grounds warranting the interference of this Court and the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 7. The petitioner/plaintiff had filed a suit vide O.S.No.130/2015 for recovery of money of Rs.20,00,000/- based on a written understanding dated 30.08.2007 executed between the petitioner and the defendants. Whereas the defendants contested the said suit alleging that the said documents were forged and fabricated. In order to examine signatures in the said documents by sending 4 them to the handwriting expert, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.199/2023 but the court below has dismissed the said application under its order dated 13.02.2023 on the ground that no admitted signatures on authentic documents are available for comparison. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no prejudice will be caused to the defendants if the alleged documents were sent for examination to the hand writing expert and in fact, the genuinity of documents, whether they are fabricated or not, will be known, which would be definitely helpful for the court below for better adjudication of the case. In view of the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow the present revision petition. The plaintiff be given an opportunity of getting authentic documents containing signatures of the defendants of the relevant period of the court below can direct the defendants to file documents, if any, of the relevant period to be used as comparing material. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order dated 13.02.2023 in I.A.No.199 of 2023 is hereby set aside, consequently I.A.No.199 of 2023 is allowed and the court below is directed to send the alleged documents to the handwriting expert for examination. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS