THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3827 of 2025 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 14.11.2025 in I.A.No.1115 of 2025 in O.S.No.52 of 2012 passed by the Judge, Family Court-cum-IX Additional District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari and prayed to set-aside the said order. 2. Heard Mr.G.V.L.Nageswar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.T.V.S. Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr.G.V.Shivaji, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3 to 7. 3. The petitioners are the defendants in the Suit in O.S.No.52 of 2012 filed for specific performance of agreement of sale executed by the defendant No.1 and his wife. In the said Suit, the petitioners filed I.A.No.1115 of 2025 under Sections 73 and 45 of the Indian Evidence Act r/w 151 of the C.P.C. seeking to send Ex.A1 to Truth Labs, Hyderabad or Probe Labs, Hyderabad to compare the admitted signatures on Ex.A1 of the deceased 1st defendant with the disputed signatures on Exs.A12 and A13 and also taking into 2 consideration the admitted signatures of the 1st defendant in gift settlement deed No.1767/2012. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner No.1 is their father/deceased 1st defendant took the defence that the signatures on the reverse page of page No.1 of Ex.A1 with regard to part payment endorsement, do not belong to him and his wife. To prove the same, they filed I.A.No.645 of 2015 for sending the endorsement, dated 06.12.2008 and 24.03.2011 to the hand writing expert for comparison with their admitted signatures on Ex.A1 and the same was allowed by the Court below on 27.08.2019. Accordingly, those documents are sent to the hand writing experts of Forensic Laboratory, Vijayawada. But, it was returned for want of admitted signatures of contemporary period. Again, they filed I.A.No.2061 of 2023 which is allowed by order, dated 08.05.2024. But, the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, returned the document stating that there is no expert, who is conversant with Telugu language in their laboratory. The petitioners also filed I.A.No.1125 of 2024 seeking the same relief. It is also allowed by order, dated 09.01.2025. It is also returned by the Forensic Laboratory, Vijayawada for want of admitted signatures of contemporary period. 3 5. Further, the petitioners contend that on 16.07.2024, while cleaning the house on the occasion of ‘Tholi Ekadasi’ on 17.07.2024, they found a Gift Settlement Deed, dated 03.04.2012 registered as document No.1767/2012 executed by their father i.e., the deceased 1st defendant in favour of 2nd petitioner. Immediately, they informed the same to their counsel and advised to file the present petition. 6. On behalf of the respondent No.1/plaintiff, learned counsel would submit that the State Forensic Laboratory on two occasions and the Central Forensic Laboratory on one occasion returned Ex.A1 for want of contemporary signatures. The Settlement Deed bearing Document No. 1767/2012 is brought into existence, thereafter. The said document does not contain signatures of both the executants of the agreement of sale, dated 13.02.2008 and it does not relate to contemporary period of alleged Gift Settlement Deed. Accordingly, the learned counsel would submit that no purpose would be served if the document is sent to Truth Labs, Hyderabad or Probe labs, Hyderabad and as such, the trial court rightly dismissed the application and now, interference of this Court is not required into the reasoned order passed by the trial court while dismissing the said application. 4 7. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsels and upon careful examination of the material available on record, it is an admitted fact that earlier seeking the same relief, the petitioner filed I.A.No.645 of 2015, I.A.No.2061 of 2023 and I.A.No.1125 of 2024 and all those petitions have allowed by the trial court sending the admitted signatures on Ex.A1, dated 13.02.2008 to the Forensic Laboratory at Vijayawada and Central Forensic Science Laboratory at Hyderabad. But two times, the forensic laboratory returned Ex.A1 stating that the admitted signatures of contemporary are required. The Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad returned the same as there is no expert, who is conversant with Telugu language, is available in their laboratory. 8. Admittedly, the Suit pertains to the year 2012 and already trial is completed and posted for arguments. At this stage, filing the present petition seeking the same relief would unnecessarily delay the final adjudication of the matter. The trial court also rightly observed that the petitioners are filing the petitions one after another since 2015 for the same relief of comparison. But, no purpose was served till today. 9. This Court fully agreeing with the reasons recorded by the trial court while dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners. Therefore, 5 in our considered view, there is no infirmity or irregularity in the order passed by the trial court in dismissing I.A.No.1115 of 2025 in O.S.No.52 of 2012. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Date: 30.01.2026 PKR 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND 118 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3827 of 2025 Date: 30.01.2026 PKR