APHC010688292025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE TWE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: C.R.P.No.3707 of 2025 Between: 1. K.MALLISWARI, W/o.K.MUNASWAMY NAIDU, AGED 74 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. FLAT No.510, BALAJI EMPIRE APARTMENT, BACKSIDE OF HYUNDAI SHOWROOM, RENIGUNTA ROAD, TIRUPATI CITY, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT, ERSTWHIL DISTRICT. 1. KILARI SIVASEKHAR NAIDU, S/o.K. MUNASWAMY NAIDU, AGED YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/o.H.No.39/289, SHIRLEY ROAD, PAPATOE TOE, AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND, AT PRESENT TEMPORARILY RESIDING AT ALLIKASIM VILLAGE, GAJULAMANYAM POST, RENIGUNTA MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. SURYADEVARA LA IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY TO THIS CRP AND SINCE NO RELIEF IS CLAIMED) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Smt.NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Mr.SAI AKASH N Order Reserved on : 05.01.2026 Order Pronounced on : 20.02.2026 Order Uploaded on : 25.02.2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 3707 and 3709 of 2025 K.MALLISWARI, W/o.K.MUNASWAMY NAIDU, AGED 74 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. FLAT No.510, BALAJI EMPIRE APARTMENT, BACKSIDE OF HYUNDAI SHOWROOM, RENIGUNTA ROAD, TIRUPATI CITY, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT, ERSTWHIL ...PETITIONER AND KILARI SIVASEKHAR NAIDU, S/o.K. MUNASWAMY NAIDU, AGED YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/o.H.No.39/289, SHIRLEY ROAD, PAPATOE TOE, AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND, AT PRESENT TEMPORARILY RESIDING AT ALLIKASIM VILLAGE, GAJULAMANYAM POST, RENIGUNTA MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT. SURYADEVARA LATHA, (FORMALLY ADDED) (2ND RESPONDENT IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY TO THIS CRP AND SINCE NO RELIEF ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt.NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 05.01.2026 20.02.2026 25.02.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA 3707 and 3709 of 2025 K.MALLISWARI, W/o.K.MUNASWAMY NAIDU, AGED 74 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. FLAT No.510, BALAJI EMPIRE APARTMENT, BACKSIDE OF HYUNDAI SHOWROOM, RENIGUNTA ROAD, TIRUPATI CITY, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR ...PETITIONER KILARI SIVASEKHAR NAIDU, S/o.K. MUNASWAMY NAIDU, AGED 46 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/o.H.No.39/289, SHIRLEY ROAD, PAPATOE TOE, AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND, AT PRESENT TEMPORARILY RESIDING AT ALLIKASIM VILLAGE, GAJULAMANYAM POST, RENIGUNTA MANDAL, TIRUPATHI THA, (FORMALLY ADDED) (2ND RESPONDENT IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY TO THIS CRP AND SINCE NO RELIEF ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 The Court made the following common order: The petitioner – 1st defendant in O.S.No.162 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the X Additional District Judge, Tirpuati, filed the present Revision Petitions against the Common Order dated 12.11.2025 in I.A.Nos.312 and 313 of 2025 and the same are disposed of by this Common Order. 2. The 1st respondent – plaintiff filed the above mentioned suit for Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale dated 15.03.2013 in respect of the plaint schedule properties. The petitioner / 1st defendant initially filed a written statement inter alia stating that at the time of registration of the Will dated 17.12.2012 executed by her, the respondent – plaintiff obtained her signatures on some blank papers and on some stamp papers under the guise of taking loan from the financial institutions and later she learnt that the respondent / plaintiff had misused the same and fabricated the suit agreement. In Para No.10 of the written statement, she also took a plea that the suit agreement and its endorsement are forged one. In the additional written statement, she also pleaded that the plaintiff fabricated the suit agreement by utilizing blank signed stamp papers and that he forged her signature beneath the endorsement dated 10.07.2013 in the alleged suit agreement of sale and created the same, that the plaintiff fabricated and created the alleged suit agreement of sale and approached the Court with unclean hands. 3. When the suit is posted for the evidence on defendant’s side, she filed I.A.No.312 of 2025 under Order 18, R.17 & Sec.151 C.P.C., to recall D.W.1 3 for adducing further evidence and I.A.No.313 of 2025 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act seeking to send the Ex.A4 containing the signature i.e., Payment Endorsement dated 10.07.2013 to the handwriting and finger prints expert along with the contemporaneous documents containing the admitted signatures of the petitioner / 1st defendant i..e, (i)Registered Will dated 17.12.2012 executed by her in favour of the respondent / plaintiff (ii) Cancellation of Will Deed dated 24.12.2012 executed by the petitioner and Registered Sale Deed dated 28.03.2014 executed by the petitioner in favour of the 2nd defendant, for opinion. The respondent / plaintiff filed counter, resisted the said applications, and the same were dismissed vide common order dated 12.11.2025. Against the said order dismissing I.A.No.312 of 2025 and I.A.No.313 of 2025, C.R.P.No.3709 of 2025 and C.R.P.No.3707 of 2025 respectively are filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the learned Trial Court went wrong in dismissing the I.As., in question, without considering the matter in the proper perspective. She submits that the learned Trial Court erred in rejecting I.A.No.313 of 2025 on the ground that the petitioner took inconsistent pleas in the written statement and further that the said application was filed at a belated stage with an intention to protract the litigation. She contends that there is no bar for the defendant to take inconsistent pleas and so far as filing of application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act seeking an expert opinion on a document is concerned, the view taken by the learned Trial Court is not tenable in the light of the judgment of a Division Bench of the 4 erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Janachaitanya Housing Corporation Limited v. Divya Financiaries1. The learned counsel contends that as the petitioner – defendant has specifically pleaded that her signature on Ex.A4 is forged, the comparison of her signature with her signatures on contemporaneous documents would assist the Court in arriving at a just conclusion. She further submits that the order of the learned Trial Court, without appreciating the relevancy and necessity of the reopening of evidence of D.W.1 is unsustainable, bereft of cogent reasons and its’ opinion that the petitioner’s conduct indicates lack of bonafides is misconceived. Contending that the Common Order dated 12.11.2025 is vitiated by incorrect exercise of jurisdiction vested in the learned Trial Court, she seeks to allow the Revision Petitions. 5. On the other hand, Mr.N.Subbarao, learned Senior Counsel made submissions to sustain the order of the learned Trial Court. He submits that the applications in question were filed only with a view to protract the matter, that too after the witnesses were examined at length, that P.W.1 was recalled twice, the attestor of Ex.A4-Endorsement was examined as P.W.2 and nothing was elicited in the cross examination. He submits that when the matter is posted for the cross-examination of D.W.3, the petitioner / defendant No.1 came up with the above applications with a view to fill up the gaps in the evidence. He submits that the petitioner / defendant No.1 filed the additional written statement in the year 2018, but did not take any steps to file any 1 2008 (3) ALT 409 5 application under section 45 of the Evidence Act and at the fag-end of the trial, filed the applications in question. He further submits that as rightly opined by the learned Trial Court, the applications in question are lacking in bona-fides and filed only for the purpose of dragging on the proceedings. He submits that there are no grounds, much less, good grounds warranting the interference of this Court in the order under challenge and the Revision Petitions are therefore liable to be dismissed. 6. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order warrants interference by this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case? 7. Before dealing with the point for consideration, it may be pertinent to note that in the impugned common order, much attention has been bestowed on the application for sending the Ex.A4-Payment acknowledgment to the expert for comparison of the signatures of the petitioner / defendant No.1 with the contemporaneous documents. There is little discussion with reference to the other application and conclusion thereon in the impugned order. Be that as it may. Insofar as the belated stage / delay in filing I.A.No.313 of 2025 which inter alia is the main factor for dismissal of the said I.A., by the learned Trial Court, in the light of the judgment in Janachaitanya Housing Corporation Limited, it cannot be a ground for rejection of an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. In the said decision, a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, was dealing with a reference as to whether an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act filed for 6 sending the signatures for comparison and expert opinion, can be entertained at a later stage, including when the suit was coming up for arguments after entire trial. 8. The Division Bench after considering the matter, opined that the Court cannot lay down any hard and fast rules controlling the discretion of the Court to send the disputed documents / writings for the opinion of the expert or to examine him, in support of such opinion. The Division Bench ultimately answered the reference opining that “no time could be fixed for filing applications under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the disputed signature or writings to the hand writing expert for comparison and opinion and same shall be left open to the discretion of the Court, for exercising such discretion when exigencies so demand, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The said judgment was considered and approved by a Full Bench in Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad v. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu and Others2 case. 9. From a reading of the above judgment while it is clear that an application can be filed even after trial, but the discretion is vested with the Court either to accept or reject the said application. 10. In the present case, one of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/ defendant No.1 is that the impugned order was passed by the learned Trial Court by incorrect exercise of jurisdiction vested in 2 2016 (2) ALT 248 7 it. This Court finds merit in the said submission for more than one reason. Firstly, the petitioner / defendant No.1 in the written statement (original and additional), took not only a plea that the suit agreement of sale dated 15.03.2013 was fabricated by obtaining her signatures on some blank papers, but also pleaded specifically that the respondent / plaintiffs forged the signature beneath the endorsement dated 10.07.2013 in the said agreement of sale. In the said circumstances, more particularly, in view of the settled position of Law, that the defendant can take inconsistent / different pleas [See: Baldev Singh & Others v. Manohar Singh & Others, (2006) 6 SCC 498] sending of the documents for comparison would aid the Court to arrive at a just conclusion. In fact, as seen from the cross examination of the petitioner / defendant (D.W.1), she categorically denied that the signature shown in Ex.A4-Endorsement does not belong to her. The opinion expressed by the learned Trial Court that the contention that expert examination is essential lacks merit, as the petitioner / defendant has unequivocally admitted to have signed the papers relied upon by the respondent / plaintiff, is not tenable. 11. Secondly, I.A.No.312 of 2025 was filed to recall D.W.1 for further evidence. In the affidavit, the reasons for seeking to recall the said witness were stated. Though advice of the new counsel may not be an acceptable reason, but to establish that the signature beneath the Ex.A4 Payment Endorsement is forged, the said document has to be sent for comparison with the contemporaneous documents, by recalling the D.W.1. The learned Trial Court has not examined the said I.A., with reference to the plea taken by the 8 petitioner / defendant and whether recalling of the said witness is justified. Therefore the dismissal of I.A.No.312 of 2025 is not tenable. 12. For the aforegoing reasons, the order passed by the learned Trial Court in I.A.No.312 of 2025 is set aside and the I.A., stands allowed. In the light of the decisions referred to supra, I.A.No.313 of 2025 is allowed. The learned Trial Court shall take steps to send Ex.A4 for comparison with the signature on contemporaneous documents filed along with the said I.A., by recalling D.W.1. 13. In the result, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. 14. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and as the suit is of the year 2013, the learned Trial Court shall make endeavour to dispose of the suit, as expeditiously as possible, within eight (8) months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, all pending applications shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Dt. 20.02.2026 BLV 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 3707 and 3709 of 2025 Date: 20.02.2026 BLV