HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA C.R.P.Nos.2198, 2199 & 2200 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the orders dated 30.04.2025 in I.A.Nos.206, 207 & 208 of 2025 in O.S.No.19 of 2015 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi dismissing the applications viz., I.A.No.206 of 2025 is filed under Section 151 of C.P.C with a prayer to reopen the evidence on behalf of petitioner/plaintiff; I.A.No.207 of 2025 is filed under Order 16 Rule 4 r/w 151 of CPC with a prayer to summon the Sub-Registrar, Darsi for cause production of specimen signature/thumb impression book for the year 1979 relating to the registered sale deed dated 30.03.1979 vide document No.299/1979 and I.A.No.208 of 2025 is filed under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act with a prayer to send Ex.B1 unregistered Will deed dated 02.04.2009 to the handwriting expert at Forensic Science Laboratory, Mangalagiri for comparison of the thumb impression of the executants thereon with his admitted thumb impression and for report, in the interest of justice. 2 2. Since the petitioners and respondent are one and the same in the present three Civil Revision Petitions and arisen out of a suit O.S.No.19 of 2015 and also issues involved in these revision petitions are all identical, therefore this Court is inclined to pass a common order. Petitioner herein is plaintiff and respondents herein are defendants in the suit. For convenience of the Court the parties arrayed at Court below would be referred in this petition. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he filed suit O.S.No.19 of 2015 seeking partition that plaint schedule properties to be divided into five equal shares according to the fertility and utility of the soil and directing the defendants to deliver the possession of one of such contiguous shares to the plaintiff within the time fixed by the Hon’ble Court and in default the same may be done through the process of the Court by passing a preliminary and final decrees and to grant future mense profits. While so, cross- examination of all the defendants’ side witnesses were already done. It is the contention of defendants that by virtue of Ex.B1 unregistered Will dated 02.04.2009 item No.4 of the suit schedule property and other properties are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the 2nd defendant. The learned counsel for the 3 plaintiff argues that the plaintiff want to send the Ex.B1 unregistered Will dated 02.04.2009 to the expert opinion by calling the thumb impression available in the thumb register at Sub-Registrar Office at Darsi, Unless these petitions are allowed, the genuineness of the Ex.B1 will not be proved. As such Court below committed illegality in dismissing these petitions. He further argued that it is a settled legal position that when there is a dispute regarding a document by one party to the suit, the Court cannot act as an expert to take cordinal comparison without there being expert opinion and further there is no time limit for the petitions filed under Order 16 Rule 4 and petition under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 4. As can be seen from the impugned orders, the trial Court has rightly observed that after due commencement of trial and after adducing evidence by the petitioner as well as the respondents, the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage as a surprise the petitioner has come up with these petitions i.e., I.A.Nos.206, 207 & 208 of 2025 in order to reopen the trial and also to send the Ex.B.1 unregistered Will for F.S.L and to cause production of thumb impression book for the year 1979 as stated in the petition from the Sub-Registrar of Darsi. It is further 4 observed by the trial Court that the petitioner did not adduce any substantial evidence about the availability of the thumb impression register relating to the year 1979 in the office of Sub- Registrar Office, Darsi. It is also further observed by the Trial Court that filing these applications and cause production of the thumb impression register relating to the year 1979 after a long paucity of time sought to be compared with the questioned documents i.e., Ex.B1 said to have been executed in the year 2009 would not serve any purpose. Henceforth the defendants have filed Ex.B1 during the course of their evidence and counsel for the petitioner also cross-examined all the witnesses of the defendants’ side and kept silent at that time. But coming up with the new pleas at this stage, at the fag end of the suit proceeding without any cogent and proper reasons is nothing but filing frivolous petitions which cannot be allowed for simple reason of cause production of such document/register and also to send the Ex.B1 to F.S.L which takes out the time by increasing life time of litigation. (a) In Hussain Bin Awaz v. Mittapally Venkataramulu & Others1, Hon’ble Apex Court observed thus: 1 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1083 5 “In a suit for declaration and injunction, it is for the plaintiff to prove his case. Section 45 read with Section 73 of the Act, can only be invoked for an admitted document for the purpose of comparison of signatures or handwriting.” (b) In Shamim Ahamed and another vs. Mr. Mohd Haneef Quareshi [W.P.No.13508 of 2020 (GM-CPC), dated 22.11.2023] the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru held thus: “5. The suit of the respondent/plaintiff is for declaration that he is the owner of suit schedule property by cancelling the registered sale deed dated 24.05.2007. The burden is on the respondent/plaintiff to prove that the sale deed 24.05.2007 is the result of conspiracy, and is a created and forged sale deed. When the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the issue with regard to prayer for declaration and cancellation it would not be for the petitioners/defendants to call Sub-Registrar and documents stated in I.A. filed under Order XVI Rule 6 of CPC. 6. The trial Court is justified in rejecting the I.A. filed under Section 151 of CPC to reopen the stage for further evidence. A perusal of I.A filed under Section 151 of CPC would indicate that reopening of the stage is sought only to examine the Sub- Registrar. This Court is of the opinion that the Sub-Registrar would not be necessary to be examined in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioners/defendants have not sought reopening of the stage for further examination and have not placed on record the list of witnesses.” (c) In Dandi Kiran Kumar vs. Balaji Sankar Singh [C.R.P.Nos.1215 and 1342 of 2022, dated 06.01.2023] this Hon’ble Court passed an order which reads as under: “5. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the Court below rightly held that filing of the present applications filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 at the stage of arguments is only to drag on the matter. He further submits that as rightly held by the Court below, it has ample power under Section 75 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to compare the signatures and thumb impressions out of the record. Therefore, in the event of difficulty in comparison, then only the reference to expert opinion would arise. He contends that there is every possibility of change of signatures if the 6 timeline is very high. Even in the present case, the date of execution of the promissory note is 08.08.2016 and the petitioner/defendant sought for comparison of signatures in the year 2022.” (d) In Gajavalli Bhaskara Rao vs. Pakanati Srinivasa Reddy (CRP Nos.377 & 379 of 2023, dated 20.03.2023) this Hon’ble Court observed as under: “xxxxx xxxxx, the petitioner did not file any piece of paper to show that the account is maintained in his name and failed to aver and mention cheque numbers and dates of cheques in the application. She further contended that, no cheque numbers need to be given or mentioned in the affidavit as once the bank official is summoned, he would come with the cheques that were given during the period and those cheques can be sent to the expert for comparison along with the signatures on the promissory notes. She further contended that, the court below has failed to take note of this aspect and dismissed the said applications erroneously. As such, the present revisions are filed and prayed to allow the revision petitions. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent contended that, in the affidavit filed in support of their respective applications the petitioner did not plead or aver properly stating that the cheques that are sought to be summoned are of contemporary period which are required to send to the expert along with the suit promissory notes. He further submitted that, the petitioner did not file any other documents available with him except the cheques that are to be summoned through the Bank Manager and the Court below has rightly dismissed the said applications. As such, prayed to dismiss the revisions. 6. Perused the record. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.158/2019 for recovery of money basing on promissory notes. In the said suit, the petitioner filed one application vide I.A.No.50/2021 under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908 and filed another application vide I.A.No.51/2021 under Order 16 Rule 6 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the said application states that the petitioner has not properly or categorically stated as to which cheque it has to be summoned from the bank. Further, the petitioner did not state that he has no other admitted signatures of the contemporary period available with him. In the absence of these grounds, the Court below has rightly dismissed the applications. This Court 7 does not find any irregularity or impropriety and as there are no valid and justifiable grounds raised or urged in the present revision warranting the interference of this Hon’ble court, these revisions are liable to be dismissed.” 5. The Trial Court has rightly held that the petitioner who is well aware of the all the facts and circumstances and filing these petitions in a piece meal one after other with an intention to drag the suit which was filed in the year way back 2015, and had also riped for disposal. Despite having ample opportunity and sufficient time to place all the grounds and material on record, the petitioner failed to do so. 6. The trial Court has discretion to arrive just decision after completion of trial and since ample evidence was placed to determine the dispute, collecting expert opinion as contended by the plaintiff was not at all required. The Court below rightly observed that burden of proof is on the defendants to prove the Ex.B1 unregistered Will in terms of Transfer of Property Act, as they filed the said document. Therefore the petitioner cannot be permitted to seek for the said reliefs. It is true that there is no time limit for the petition to be filed under Order 16 Rule 4 but cannot be permitted without there being any foundation of pleadings and sufficient purpose or object. In the case on hand, the document sought for comparison is not relating to 8 contemporary period, which is against the settled law, the same cannot be referred for expert opinion. 7. Therefore in the opinion of this Court, the reasons shown by the trial Court to dismiss the applications i.e., I.A.Nos.206, 207 & 208 of 2025 in O.S.No.19 of 2015 to reopen the evidence, to summon the Sub-Registrar, Darsi for cause production of specimen signature/thumb impression book for the year 1979 and to send the said Ex.B1 document for comparison to the F.S.L to get expert opinion do not suffer any illegality or irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference of this Court. 8. Accordingly, the C.R.P.Nos.2198, 2199 & 2200 of 2025 are dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 05.01.2025 BSP 9 164 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA C.R.P.Nos.2198, 2199 & 2200 of 2025 05.01.2025 BSP